No Obama leadership on energy
By KLVentures
@KLVentures (119)
United States
April 23, 2009 7:03am CST
I believe that the single greatest issue facing the U.S. economy is that of future energy development. I think that the country pretty much unanimously agrees that our dependence on foreign oil is not a recipe for future success and sustainability for our economy. The supply is subject to wild price fluctuation and instability. I believe that the argument can be made that the spike in energy prices in 2007/2008 was what set off a chain reaction that toppled the house of cards that was our banking and mortgage system.
If you remember the talk from the time period in which energy prices were spiking, there was all the talk of alternative energy and energy development. Everything was supposedly on the table including ethanol, hydrogen, off shore drilling, nuclear, wind and solar. Congress was going to make sure that we would not be held hostage by the oil producing nations or oil companies. Well the economy collapsed and oil prices fell. Public outcry stopped and now nobody cares anymore. The problem is that, the same underlying conditions still exist in our energy supply line and they will show up again when the economy begins to recover.
What is the answer to this problem? I am not sure, but I am positive that sitting tight and hoping for the best will not work. The current administration seems to offer no leadership on this issue. In fairness, none of the prior administrations have either. They talk a little about renewable energy like solar and wind but nothing that will actually provide any significant source of energy in the greater scope of the economy.
The Obama administration also offers up ideas on conservation but this is not the answer. Look at history. No economy has ever grown through the forced conservation of resources. Economies and job creation are fueled by the presence of cheap and reliable energy. I am not putting down conservation because if you can save a few dollars by using new light bulbs, increasing insulation, or using an energy management system then you are a fool not to do it. But, the future growth of our economy is dependent on American industry having access to increased energy supplies. Any relative price advantage in this area will only serve as an advantage to the American economy.
This is why we need a leader who will actually tackle the issue. We need an energy project that is the equivalent to the Apollo program or the Manhattan Project. Since we are printing up trillions of dollars to fund all types of questionable projects, why not actually fund something that could actually benefit future generations and ensure future prosperity (after all, we do need to pay off this debt someday).
The question of what type of energy project to pursue is something that I am not sure of at this point. I do believe that our energy will need to be electricity based so an upgrade to the nations grid system would be a great start. The method of generation is a tougher question that would require much more consideration by experts.
I have my doubts that wind or solar could ever provide the capacity necessary to expand our current energy production. I am not positive that this is the case but I have seen no evidence of that this could happen. I am still open to the possibility of this if someone could explain how to achieve the massive scale of production that would be needed without blotting the landscape with endless wind turbines and solar panels.
We need to look at all of the options like nuclear, oil shale, clean coal, tidal power, new hydro projects and other options. But the real point is we need a leader that will stand up and put forward a plan. If a clear and concise goal is put forward and a leader can rally the American people around it then I have no doubt we could accomplish it. I believe that the next great world power will be the nation that solves the energy generation issue. I would like that to be the United States. I believe that this issue is more important than global warming, health care, or interrogation memos. This is an issue that will truly shape the future of our country for decades.
I know that real leadership is a lot to ask for in this era of pop culture politicians. I know that it is not flashy issue but it is one that we really need to have addressed.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
25 Apr 09
KL, were you asleep on earth day? Obama outlined his energy policy, and it is the most agressive our country has ever seen. His energy plan that he explained will cut out energy cost, and our demand which is our problem. We as a country consume 3/4 of the worlds energy, yet we produce less than 1/3. We need to produce more energy then we take in, but this will require us to listen to our president, and do what he is asking us to do. If you DO check your air pressure in your tires, you will get better gas milage, and longer tire life. If you replace your old light bulbs with energy effecient bulbs it will save on your electric bill. If you drive less, and walk more you will be in better shape, and use less gas. These are all things that we decide to do, or not to do everyday, if you want to change the world, it has to start with you. Only you can change YOUR world.
American industry has a history of running, and growing with a very limited energy supply (remember WWII?). The key to our energy policy is to research technologies that can increase our energy supply, while decreasing our reliance on foreign countries. From what I have read, it seams that you are stuck on the old ideas from the energy companies. The only types of energy that you mentioned that can work is the water based energy. Nuclear has a huge problem of the spent waste that we can't get rid of, and there is no such thing as "clean Coal" (I talked to an executive with Chevron a week ago, and he said they have tried it, and it ain't an option). The two options that you have dismissed (like many people have) is wind turbines, and solar panels. I have two customers that have small wind turbines on their houses, and they produce enough energy to run their entire house. If we can increase production of solar panels, making them more economical, then we can use them the same way people are using wind turbines. People can move to synthetic motor oils instead of conventional, if every car, and truck in the united states moved to synthetics, the country would save 400 million gallons of oil a year. If over the road trucks moved to super single drive and trailer tires it would save us 160 million gallons of diesel fuel. ust think if we could eliminate the drive through at your local McDonalds, that would probably save of millions of gallons of gas a year.
The problem with all of these ideas is getting people to do it. We saw people riding their bikes to work when gas got so high, we saw people driving less, and carpooling, we saw people looking at logistics more to make routes more economical. But, once gas got down to $2.00 a gallon, people went back to their old ways, and we it won't be long till we are right back to the $4.00 a gallon gas, and everyone wondering why that is. If all Americans were to listen to our president, they would see that you can save alot of money by doing things that cost very little money, and you could just save the country. But, people have to do it.
@KLVentures (119)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I think that you are missing the point of my post. I did read Obama's earth day comments but he outlined mostly an energy conservation policy not an energy production policy. I have nothing against energy conservation and I think American's will switch to more conservation tactics in the future. But let's say that we implement massive conservation techniques over the next 10 years which result in 10% reduction in energy use which is more than anyone predicts we could do, we would still be dependent on foreign supplies of energy production with prices that rapidly swing due to world conditions. Obama is throwing around billions on every other pet project but nothing for actual energy production. The only true way around this is to radically alter our energy production techniques.
By the way many of your facts seem to be wrong. According to the U.S. government, the U.S. consumes about 25% of the world's energy. Our per capita usage is very high in comparison to most of the world but several countries have a heavier per capita usage. For info on this visit http://www.census.gov/compendia/stattab/tables/09s1336.pdf
I am not sure what your reference to World War II means exactly. There was rationing of energy during that time period but overall total energy consumption for the nation increased.
Historically an economy needs access to cheap and plentiful energy in order to post large growths. This is why original textile mills were located in river cities during the industrial revolution. This is why aluminum producers located next to huge hydro resources on the west coast. To maintain our prosperity we will need this cheap and plentiful resource.
I have no problem with the wind and solar that you mention but I have seen no serious study that shows this can produce the massive amounts of energy that we require. All studies I have seen show it as a complimentary supplier of a small percentage of need.
As far as what you call the "old ideas", I am stuck on them because we know that they work but I am more than eager to embrace a new idea if one was brought forward. Nuclear is not perfect because you do need to deal with the waste but it is a zero carbon producer. Your friend at Chevron ( big surprise he does not want coal) is arguing semantics on clean coal. If you think of clean coal as zero carbon then it does not exist. If you think of it as energy produced with less carbon produced then what current fossil fuel production creates then the scrubber and recovery technology does exist for clean coal.
Once again, I am not stuck on any of these ideas. I want something new. But most of all, I want a national leader that is willing to actually stand up and take charge of this issue which is going to be critical in the coming years. Obama can talk about energy all he wants but he has done nothing to lead on this issue. Once again, this is not Obama alone as I have seen nothing from the other side either.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
23 Apr 09
Our energy solution isn't going to come from Obama or any of the democrats in office. They have drunk of the kool aid that has been served by Al Gore, along with millions of others. Even to the point of blatantly lying.
Am I a republican just trying to turn whoever I can against them? Nope, just someone with some common sense.
@KLVentures (119)
• United States
23 Apr 09
I usually vote Republican as well, but they have offered no more leadership on this then the Democrats. They talked a lot about domestic energy production but they did nothing to move things along.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
23 Apr 09
I respectfully disagree that this is the single greatest issue regarding our economy. I believe that we need to let citizens keep their resource. I also think that if you leave clean energy to the private sector, it will come and it will be stronger. Anything the government touches goes to crap. We are a country of very smart, innovative, and motivated people.
