Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Presidential Candidates Clueless on Energy
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 03/11/2008 | Michael J. Economides

Posted on 03/11/2008 9:18:57 PM PDT by neverdem

It is certain that the United States is in for an energy price and supply shock the likes of which we have never experienced or imagined. While high prices, to a reasonable extent can be tolerated, hell will break loose if massive supply disruptions emerge. We are much closer to them than people think. Those who think that we can conserve ourselves to energy independence need not read any further. They are vastly wrong and it is pointless to argue with them.

The first proof of trouble to come is that none of the three US presidential candidates, Senators John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have paid much attention to the fact that oil, gas and coal -- the sources that provide 87% of US energy – can, through better use of the latter two can be taken advantage of to help free us from the “tyranny of oil.” Their lack of interest is breathtaking considering that whoever gets elected will probably be confronted with $120 per barrel oil.

The candidates have mentioned energy occasionally but their preciously rare pronouncements contain only the trite mantras of conservation (something that has never played any major role in US total energy demand), the most unrealistic “alternatives” such as solar and wind and the negative-energy-balance biofuels. They have talked about technology and used allegories of sending a man to the moon, but no one showed how technology, admirable as it may be, can break the basic laws of thermodynamics: energy cannot be generated from nothing.

Second proof -- even more daunting -- is that all candidates have been Gored, accepting the most outlandish and easily discountable environmental gobbledygook and alarmism as facts and all have promised “solutions” to global climate change, carbon dioxide emissions reduction and the clearly whimsical carbon trading. The most radical and preposterous environmentalist ideologies of yesteryear have been mainstreamed, endowed with neckties and pantsuits.

Even if for the moment one accepts the most ridiculous environmentalist slogans, any substantial transition away from fossil fuels will take at least four to five decades. And this would only be in a “steady state” world, not one we live in which is characterized by the burgeoning energy demands of China, India and other developing countries.

The next four decades are good for a dozen recessions, if things were business as usual or a constant downturn if American politicos actually apply what they have been saying. especially what they seem not to worry about during this election season. I once had a secret hope that in a Hillary Clinton administration some pragmatism would be provided by her husband until he kicked sanity away by actually saying recently, “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions.” Really and really? Is this the guy of “it’s the economy stupid?”

The US -- the world’s reigning superpower -- has come under the control of a situation generated by energy militant countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Russia. Importing more than 60% of its oil consumption while the national debate is dominated by upper middle class ideologues who are fanatically averse to exploiting America’s own resources, we have become dangerously vulnerable to oil prices that cannot be rationalized by any economic model. Except of course the irrational geopolitical components fomented by countries that have the United States exactly where they want it to be. Those same countries also can cause the far more devastating to our economy supply disruptions.

Oil supply and demand is a margin business where 0.5% of over or under supply can generate havoc on the market. There is ample historical evidence that such small discrepancy has caused huge fluctuations in the oil price, perhaps 30% or more. Imagine if ANWAR were already on line, producing as much as 10% of US oil imports. It would have a huge impact on the price of oil, regulating and dampening foreign influences and, in my reckoning, causing at least a $25 reduction in the current oil price.

The blame for the US predicament surely must also fall on the current administration. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to both friends and foes, were supposed to be an energy-oriented administration. They were the ones who could explain to the American people the importance that energy plays on our economy and our life style. Instead, mired in Iraq and other misadventures, they failed in exactly the area they were supposed to shine. Instead they allowed themselves to be painted as stooges of big oil. I only wish that big oil had the sway it is accused of. The truth is that they have been rendered largely impotent, shut out of reserves by militant nations and non-supported by a weak government that has lost focus.

The most visible act was a Frankenstein of an “energy bill” that showcased biofuels, including the mandating of non-existent cellulosic ethanol. As of late, biofuels received the notice they deserve, most likely to be relegated to the trash heap of similar experiments.

The energy industry and the energy world are inundated with alarmisms such as peak oil and global warming, things that are in many ways philosophical, perhaps even proxies for religion. The real alarm should be whether in the very near future we can have our lights on and our transportation in place. Every indication shows that our next president will prove to be the Chauncey Gardener of energy.

Mr. Economides is editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; agw; climatechange; energy; globalwarming; gorebullwarming; issues; mccain; nobama; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: fabian

Of course all things being equal, consumers during the 80s and 90s would prefer better fuel efficiency. However, all things are not equal. Choices need to be made by consumers and producers. On balance, consumers during the 80s and 90s preferred more reliability, more safety, and more comfort to higher fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency did improve during this period but other factors offset the increased efficiency.

As far as your claim that there is a technology to greatly increase fuel efficiency, please be specific. I do not know what you are talking about. If there was a technology, it would be widely used all other things equal. There is a long way from having a patent to making a viable technology. I am highly skeptical about your claim that a conspiracy among the oil companies is preventing higher fuel efficiency.

Supporters of electric vehicles make the same claim. The supporters claim that a conspiracy prevented commercial deployment of electric vehicles. These claims are baseless. Electric vehicles are not commercially viable now. Even if they were, there is no source for recharging them on a large scale.


61 posted on 03/13/2008 6:28:39 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: businessprofessor

simply take a look at protiumfuelsystems.com to see an inexpensive add on of a hydrogen supplement that is working great for alot of drivers. The 02 sensor has to be pulled out of the exhaust stream which is easily done the their oxyisolater. This is because the car makers have built the computer system to increase the fuel ratio anytime more 02 is read in the exhaust, thereby negating some of the gains from fuel saving devices. Anyways, the car makers know very well about this technology and could easily add it on to the cars with easy dashboard readings for adding the distilled water and baking soda. Very simple to get great mpg’s, even in a big suv. Also, just verify that by doing a search for hydrogen generators on ebay and see the many reputable sellers with many happy customers. This is well known...the car makers and oil companies have aggreed to protect the huge profits of the oil companies,to the detrement of the car makers. Very foolish, and it is coming to an end fairly quickly.


63 posted on 03/13/2008 9:25:33 AM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Thanks. Not that I'm one to defend McCain, but it was the brainless reporter who said they toured the "melting permafrost," not the brainless RINO. They did go to Barrow, which I assume has permafrost.

All in all, it looks to me like a junket with photo ops where a "good time was had by all," but nothing educational occured. Her Hillary, diagnosed bumps on a fish as being tumors from global warming. Wow, she's good!

I wonder what glaciers they actually visited. From your link of Seward, I noted the following...

Exit Glacier has retreated 50 feet a year in the last 200 years. As you approach the glacier, you’ll see markers, starting in 1790, and ending in 1978, that show the dramatic rate of the ice’s retreat.

Either they were shown glaciers strategically or they didn't pay any attention. Maybe they were too busy posing.

64 posted on 03/13/2008 10:15:16 AM PDT by Entrepreneur (The environmental movement is filled with watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative
If they were to actually produce ethanol for a buck a gallon the huge demand would rive the price to $4 bucks in a heart beat.

What would happen to the price of other fuel?

67 posted on 03/13/2008 2:17:17 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: Baynative
It probably wouldn't change much as the Arabs all know their reserves are running out and they'll gladly cut back production and let the Chinese market make up for our absence.

Deep-ocean vents are a source of oil and gas (evidence of abiogenic hydrocarbons)

69 posted on 03/13/2008 3:17:34 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson