The American Spectator : Carter Energy Solutions, Part II

Text Size

The Energy Spectator

Carter Energy Solutions, Part II

By William Tucker on 3.26.09 @ 6:08AM

That's the only way to characterize the Obama administration's approach.

"We know the right thing to do," President Obama said about renewable energy at his press conference Tuesday. "We've known the right choice for a generation. The time has come to make that choice and act on what we know.…We have achieved more in two months for a clean energy economy than we have done in perhaps 30 years."

Thirty years. Let's see, that would be 1979, right? Hmmm… wasn't that the year -- yes, that was when Jimmy Carter finally got his Grand Energy Plan through Congress, setting us the road to corn ethanol, the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and a host of other harebrained schemes.

Carter Redux, that's the only way to describe the Obama Administration's approach to energy. After thirty years out of power, the purveyors of the Solar and Renewable Utopia are back. We're going to develop windmills, make solar panels affordable, and redesign buildings so they use only half as much energy -- in theory, at least. The subtext, of course, is this -- we won't have to deal with coal, nuclear or any of those other nasty technologies that aren't "clean and renewable."

So what's wrong with this picture? Well, the problem is that thirty years hasn't changed the laws of physics. Things like the intensity of sunlight or wind power keep intruding. Nuclear power has two million times the energy density of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are again ten times as dense as wind and solar. Multiply it out and that comes to a factor of twenty million. How does this manifest itself? Well, in the amount of land that will be required to collect all that solar and wind energy before we can begin using it.

All this came home to me again the other night while I was watching a DVD of Thomas Friedman's "Green is the New Red, White and Blue" special, which ran on the Discovery Channel. At one point, Friedman finds a hydrogen car running on fuel cells and producing zero emissions. The cars costs a million dollars to build but don't worry, he says, mass production will improve that. Then he goes to a hydrogen filling station in California, run by Honda and asks them to fill 'er up. "Where do you get the hydrogen," he asks. The Honda officials show him a solar panel about a block long right next to the station. Friedman's enthusiasm wanes, however, when he learns about the flimsiness of solar energy. "These solar panels," he says, "measuring 700 square feet, take a week to generate enough hydrogen to fill one fuel tank."

Anything solar immediately runs into the same problem. There just isn't that much energy there to begin with. In January 2009 three leading solar researchers, writing in Scientific American, proposed that by 2050 American get all its electricity from solar panels in the Southwestern desert. All we would require would be 46,000 square miles -- about one-third of New Mexico, the fifth largest state. Al Gore repeated this proposal before the Senate Energy Committee in February, although he managed to reduce the requirements to 10,000 square miles, based on the untested claims of Ausra, a California company that hasn't yet built anything but in which he is probably investing. Vaporware doesn't just apply to computers, you know.

Yet all this is being put into effect in California right now. With a renewable portfolio standard demanding 20 percent renewables by next year and 33 percent by 2020, just about anybody with rats on a treadmill can sell electricity to the state's utilities right now and be guaranteed a profit. Right now fourteen thinly funded companies are furiously drawing up plans to fill the Mojave Desert with solar installations, knowing the utilities will have to buy anything they generate.

That's why California Senator Dianne Feinstein announced last week that she is introducing a bill to set 600,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management holdings in the Mojave Desert off-limits to solar projects. "Such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public," she said. "It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," added David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy, which originally dedicated some of the land to the BLM.

Hmmm…endangered species? Environmental impact? Didn't anybody ever think of these things before? Yet such environmental objections are inevitable. A thermal solar station requires 50 square miles to generate the same 1000 megawatts (MW) you can get from a mile square coal or nuclear plant. And that's only when the sun shines! A photovoltaic plant will require 75 square miles. A wind farm takes 125 square miles and then only generates electricity 30 percent of the times. To be assure of anything near constant output you probably have to cover 500 square miles in diverse locations. The Nature Conservancy -- which is supporting nuclear -- calls this "energy sprawl." It's a great term. I wish I'd thought of it myself.

Just to pile on, though, here's another consideration. One of the biggest problems with solar panels is that they accumulate dust, dirt and sand, which reduce their efficiency by considerable amounts. Existing installations have to be washed down every few weeks with water. Has anybody thought of where in the middle of the desert you're going to find enough water to wash down 10,000 square miles of solar panels?

The one path not being pursued by the Obama Administration, of course, is nuclear energy. That would be too easy. All we'd have to do is admit that the purveyors of "clean and renewable energy" are living in a fantasy world. Once that was done, we could employ current technology, use the existing electrical grid, and skip all the business of flagellating ourselves about all the harm we do to the planet. We could put tens of thousands of construction workers to work, cut through bureaucracy (we'd have to give up the five-year reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and let Silicon Valley go back to building computers instead of thinking they can solve the world's energy problems.

Granted, Susan Hockfield, president of MIT, who spoke at the press conference Monday afternoon, did say something about developing "safer and more efficient nuclear technologies," but that's always the way. Safe and acceptable nuclear energy is always somewhere over the horizon. In fact, the technology we've got now is already safe and efficient. We just have to use it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu spoke for the Administration two weeks ago, however, when he cancelled Yucca Mountain. The move wasn't really that significant, since reprocessing nuclear fuel makes much more sense. (See "There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste," Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2009) But it speaks volumes about what to expect form the Obama Administration on nuclear power.

Jimmy Carter's Presidency was brought down by his failure to deal with the energy problem. After four years of floundering around with oil price controls and "alternate energy" Carter was overwhelmed by world events.

Is the Obama Presidency headed down the same road? I wouldn't bet against it.

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.26.09 @ 6:39AM

Let's hope it ends the same way. Four years, buck teeth and goodbye.

David Mathews| 3.26.09 @ 7:00AM

William Tucker demonstrates that conservatives are stupid, insane and desperate .... as he wishes vainly:

* "Is the Obama Presidency headed down the same road? I wouldn't bet against it. "

You know what, fool, the United States of America had its fill of Republican presidents since Jimmy Carter and throughout that time the country became more addicted to oil, polluted the planet horrendously, fought several wars for oil's sake, became morbidly obese hyperconsumers, bought SUVs because gasoline was cheaper than water and then moaned loudly when gasoline became expensive, amassed a mountain of debt, and drove the nation into bankruptcy & insolvency.

So I think it safe to predict that Americans aren't going to return to that particular form of political insanity within four years or eight years.

Oh, and this ... the Republicans should notice that America isn't getting any whiter and the Republican party isn't getting any younger. Sarah Palin, Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal aren't going to lead Republicans back into power.

This William Tucker sounds very much like a shill for nuclear power. No thanks, William Tucker. The nuclear power industry died for a reason ... and it isn't going to be resurrected, either.

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 7:15AM

Bill,

The only bigger hoax than global warming inself, is the great green solution of wind and solar. I love solar sprawl argument against it. It provides a no-nonsense environmental friendly argument to counter the environmental fantasy of the wind and solar landscape polluters.

David Mathews| 3.26.09 @ 7:40AM

Hello Mike,

* "The only bigger hoax than global warming ... "

If the conservatives want to keep on portraying conservativism as a form of scientific illiteracy, go ahead and do so.

Conservatives are a politically irrelevant extremist minority for a reason, you know ...

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 7:45AM

*Republican presidents...polluted the planet horrendously*

You're again confused. The environment in the U.S. has gotten better, not worse, during every president's term, Republican or Democrat, since the peak of the industrial revolution. Never ending progress. That's the beauty of capitalism.

*amassed a mountain of debt, and drove the nation into bankruptcy & insolvency.*

Why the past tense? You've seen Obama's budget I suppose. Try amassing and driving.

*So I think it safe to predict that Americans aren't going to return to that particular form of political insanity within four years or eight years.*

If we return to $4 a gallon gasoline, God forbid, they'll be back in maybe 4 or 8 weeks.

*Oh, and this ... the Republicans should notice that America isn't getting any whiter*

What? The darkies don't care about economic or environmental sanity?

*The nuclear power industry died for a reason*

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's your objection to the only practical and sustainable fossil fuel energy alternative?

stu.b.con| 3.26.09 @ 7:58AM

Once again, when faced with fact based realities Miss Mathews injects his ad hominem partisan palaver in these pages. Miss Davey, can't you stay on the subject? What say you to turning the state of New Mexico into one giant solar panel? Where do you see the water coming from to clean those millions of yet untested, untried, and untenable solar panels? What about the effects on the environment in NM and surrounding areas? What do you have to say about the millions of acres of windmills that would be required to keep you out of the dark? What about the impact all of these windmills on wildlife? How many birds are willing to sacrifice? God you make me sick. You can't address this or any other issue in an intelligent and mature manner. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, david!
p.s. Mommy called your grilled cheese is ready!

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 8:01AM

Hi David

*If the conservatives want to keep on portraying conservativism as a form of scientific illiteracy, go ahead and do so.*

I know. I know. My views are based on Creationism and your views are based on infallible climate models produced by objective scientists at the U.N.

Conservatives are a politically irrelevant extremist minority for a reason, you know ...

Everything is cyclical my friend. Normally I would agree with you that the loyal opposition spends for than 4 or 8 years in the wilderness, but the Obama guy is nuts.

Melvin| 3.26.09 @ 8:11AM

Good morning David, I see you are in you usual fine form. Trying to rile the masses are you? There is nothing like a good spirited post to get the blood moving.
"The United States of America had its fill of Republican presidents since Jimmy Carter and throughout that time the country" This is a statement of error, because over 50 million Americans didn't vote President Obama. I would hardly call that the entire Country being fed up with Republican Presidents.
You know David, Conservatism does not belong to a political party, Conservatism is an "idea" that is espoused by many more Americans than you dare to think, and to be fair Liberalism follows the same path.
What has happened is that Liberalism of which is more associated with the Democrat Party has been taken over by what Mark Levin calls the, "Statist." The Statist views everything as a crisis that will incrementally advance the Statist agenda of more government regulation and legislation to correct the injustices that they invent.
This "Statist" view is supported by what is going on around us. Look at yourself David, your angry, your lashing out, and even if we went back to living in caves from an environmental standpoint you still would not be satisfied and would continue to call for more legislation and regulation to the point of killing off the human race, this is the philosophy of the Statist.
The simple fact is David, your not a Liberal, but an angry, frustrated Statist that feels government must solve what ails us.
I look forward to your pithy response.

Big J| 3.26.09 @ 8:27AM

I studied in detail the feasability of solar power. As an electrical contractor, I was going to revamp our company and strictly install PV systems. After 9 months worth of research, it became painfully obvious to me that it is just not feasable. Any power source that has to be subsidized by the government is not an efficient source of energy. Right now in Texas, the government provides a 30% subsidy (in the form of a tax credit) to help cut the cost of installing a solar system. It is still way too expensive, compared with traditional grid power. The break-even point is still over 25 years, and that is only in the event that none of the equipment fails. This issue still doesn't address the space required for installation. The only way to address the cost issue is to revisit the fossil fuel tax imp0sed by Jimmah Catah and transfer that money to subsidies. Thanks, but no thanks.

Unfortunately, our government-run schools place far more emphasis on how man-kind is destroying our environment than actual history. I believe this is intentional, and to see the negative impact it has had on our society, all one has to do is read Dave Matthews posts. He may not have graduated high school, but it appears that he spent enough time there for the environmentalist wackos to get their claws in him.

Very sad.

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 8:40AM

Big J,

You're correct about the schools. My kids were forced to watch Al Gore's All Too Convenient Business Plan as part of their science class. You would think that with all the controversy surrounding it that the teacher might have solicited an opposing view - or at least send a note home to the parents. But no, now the kids are all hysterical chicken littles running around like Dave Mathews crying about Polar Bears and whatnot.

Freya| 3.26.09 @ 8:58AM

While reading through the article, I noticed this:

"cut through bureaucracy (we'd have to give up the five-year reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), . . .
In fact, the technology we've got now is already safe and efficient."

Anyone else notice a slight disconnet there? Five years does sound a little excessive, but I don't suppose it's occurred to Mr. Tucker that maybe because of the bureaucracy enforcing rigorous standards that nuclear power is safe in the first place? Remove the regulation, and what now-unneeded expenses do you think companies will cut?

Dan Hirsch| 3.26.09 @ 9:00AM

I said in in November 2008; I say it again, "Barry Obama will make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan." Anybody wanna bet?

Rick Josey| 3.26.09 @ 9:45AM

It's interesting, isn't it. Democrats are willing to devote millions of acres to develop wind and solar, but won't allow a small parcel of land for drilling in ANWR. The amazing, illogical hypocrisy of the liberal mind.

Drill here, drill now.

And while we're at it, insert those rods, split those atoms and power this nation.

The only thing stopping this nation's energy progress is those liberal roadblocks in Washington.

Vote 'em out.

www.PatriotHangout.com

owyheewine| 3.26.09 @ 10:21AM

Those living in wussy motrosexual world need to get a grip that energy production and consumption are necessarily violent activities. They aren't compatible with the flower covered cumbyya world of the greenies. William Tucker is a tireless advocate of Nuclear Energy, which has to be a large part of our energy future. He just needs to understand that fossil fuels are also a necessary part of that equation. Just remember that fossil fuels are actually naturally stored solar power, given to us by the good Lord for our use.

PolishKnight| 3.26.09 @ 10:54AM

David Mathews is like our resident liberal Archie Bunker! I laughed and laughed my head off! He cheers that "America isn't getting any whiter" which shows that he has a racist agenda against whites for not voting with him. Can't win the debate on it's own merits? Cheer on racist special interest groups that can be bought via entitlements!

I'm reminded of some Soviet states that cheered on Navi invaders because the residents hated the Soviets so much. They had a point and it was a Sophie's choice, but David's hatred of Republicans is because they gave him, gasp, cheap oil! And cheap electricity! What a bunch of dirty b*stards!

Be careful what you wish for David. Then again, the voters are experiencing some buyers remorse already. Appaerntly, Obamaflation isn't turning out to be as popular as he thought it would be. Will we have 1000 dollar bills with Obama's face on them that buys a loaf of bread?

Bill| 3.26.09 @ 11:01AM

I think DM must have been assigned this web sight by the libs to fight the truth. Truth always wins. In the case of nuclear energy.. our friends across the pond already are using it and with great success. Seems like another industry we exported because of the road blocks in the states. Time for common sense to make a return and to take back our country from the wimps.

Dustoff| 3.26.09 @ 11:49AM

Bill..

Not quite on DM. This fool moves from one website to another. (the reason) Is the same that you see here. He post these long cut and paste and insults everyone who doesn't see life his way.
He here because for the last few years he has been kicked off others. I think he's running out of places to cause problems.

Big Leo| 3.26.09 @ 12:15PM

The area I live in is mostly open desert, all government owned. There is a proposal to cover a square mile of it in solar panels up at Gila Bend. Of course, you would need a third of the state to make any real dent in our dependence on fossil fuels. The environmental damage would be horrendous. If this were done, you would still need nuclear, gas, coal or oil powered plants of an equal capacity to make up for the time that the sun didn't shine.

There are two power plants within a hundred miles of my town. One is nuclear and one is natural gas. They provide power for about a sixth of what the most optimistic projection is for solar. They take less than a square mile and don't pollute. I understand that they mostly provide power for California, where they would be impossible to build because of environmental regulation.

One minor point: this is a desert, which means no water. Solar panels must be washed down every few weeks. Where are you going to get the water to wash a square mile of panels, let alone ten thousand square miles?

CarolinaK12R| 3.26.09 @ 1:11PM

As an arch conservative, I'll briefly stop dragging my knuckles around, and try to help this discussion along. It's not that so called "green" energy sources are a bad idea, and it's not that anyone relevant to the debate is advocating that we ignore the further development of those technologies. Instead, cooler heads are simply pointing out that current green energy technologies won't get us anywhere close to the total energy needed to maintain our standard of living, economic output, or however you'd like to measure it. That's simply a reality.

That reality escapes many people, however. For example, we see more and more stories in print and on tv, highlighting people that live "off the grid." This is a smug, self-congratulatory lot that live inside their insular little bubbles until they need to have an MRI done. When that happens, they just assume that the same technical, energy-hungry infrastructure they routinely condemn will be there.

There's another odd point about the green energy debate. Namely, anyone that knows anything about the manufacture of solar panels, composite blades for wind turbines, generators, etc., knows that there's quite a bit of "dirty" work involved. It's easy to pretend that a field full of daisies and windmills doesn't pollute anything, but it's just not true.

Stan Redmond| 3.26.09 @ 1:44PM

Stupid greenie liberals. Solar panels and windmills won't ever produce enough power to build and install these monstrously stupid. When glass foundries (for insulators) mines (for all the copper and aluminum) and aluminum smelters are running on windmills I might be impressed. but it ain't gonna happen.

And Davey Matthews; Study up on some engineering FACTS and figures before you run around calling me ignorant. You've been poisoned by a political philosophy that thrives on the emotional immaturity you display.

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 1:51PM

Hi Carolina,

*green energy technologies won't get us anywhere close to the total energy needed to maintain our standard of living, economic output...that reality escapes many people*

I think that may apply to your average man-in-street greenie, but not to the dedicated true believers, like David Mathews. Ironically, they fully understand the limitations of green energy sources, but don't care. For them the goal is not so much a green utopia, but rather a world without capitalism. They don't actually believe in all the global warming mumbo jumbo, so much as they see it as a usefull cudgel to batter the U.S. and the rest of the developed world.

Once standards of living and economic output are dramatically reduced, to save the world from capitalism, then the few survivers can commune with nature in the resulting green utopia.

Their problem is that the man-in-street greenie rather likes his standard of living and won't hesitate to throw out the true believers once he catches on to the ruse.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 1:52PM

Since Carter -- and the horrible energy crisis of the 1070s -- we've had three Republican presidents and one basically centrist Democrat.

None of done ANYTHING on the problem of energy.

We continue to ship billions of dollars to regimes hostile to American values; we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in the middle and far east; we've shed blood and expended vast sums to shore up our influence in that region of the world.

And for what? For the ability to go on buying oil from people who despise us.

Someone's got to do something, and people whose sole loyalty is with the rights of Exxon to make huge profits are not going to be happy with what we must do.

Oil companies have spent millions influencing "conservative" think tanks and opinion makers on these issues, so much so that there seems to be no coherent, conservative plan in the making. You've been bought and paid for.

What, other than Drill Baby Drill, do conservatives have to offer?

Clearly nuclear MUST be a part of the solution, but frankly, I don't trust you people to give good information on wind and solar energy.

Your brand is shot. I associate conservative with "in love with Exxon" and "hostile to science."

That's not my fault; it's yours, baby.

If conservatives want to have a seat at the table, they have to offer arguments and alternatives -- not just silly slogans and chants.

Big Leo| 3.26.09 @ 2:12PM

Jeremiah says, "I don't trust you people to give good information on wind and solar energy. " Why on earth would you think that conservatives wouldn't want wind and solar to work? Do you think that a good entrepreneur wouldn't be pushing it if it were in any way economically feasible? New fields are precisely where the 'conservative' capitalist entrepreneur looks for new opportunity.

This is your challenge, Jeremiah. If you don't trust the research we have done on wind and solar, produce some of your own that shows that wind and solar would be economically feasible without huge government subsidies. I don't mean some possible world-of-tomorrow technology, but what we have today. You find it, I'll invest in it.

Anna Mac| 3.26.09 @ 2:24PM

It appears DM morphed into J, irrational either way.

Mike| 3.26.09 @ 2:49PM

Jeremiah,

I don't think your bogie man, Exxon, much cares about U.S. drilling one way or the other. Their business is all pretty much overseas anyway.

I however care strongly about domestic drilling and so should you. More domestic drilling means: 1) more high paying American jobs; 2) more tax revenue from said jobs and offshore royalties; 3) lower trade and current account deficits from lower import needs; 4) less money going to unfriendly regimes by lowering oil prices; 5) less energy reliance on unstable foreign sources; and 6) lower gas prices for you and me.

It's a win win situation all the way round. Other than for some way overblown environmental concerns, why the heck not drill?

William| 3.26.09 @ 3:05PM

Obama may have been elected, but he hasn't started governing yet. He's still campaigning!

The Dems have had an absolutely golden opportunity to consolidate their victory, and perhaps lock in a Dem majority for years. They are squandering that opportunity just as fast as they can. They were elected to solve problems, not pursue their pet issues. One problem is dependence on foreign oil. The Dems are entirely to blame for our dependence on foreign oil, as they are the ones that won't let us drill for our own oil, build a new refinery, or build a new nuclear plant. People elected them to fix the problem and what do we get? Jimmy Carter II.

Remember who you are dealing with here. These are people who believe that Global Warming is real! These are people who believe that secondhand smoke is a greater danger to us than Islamic Terrorism. These are people who think our soldiers are either naive fools who were duped into joining the military, or crude thugs who enjoy raping and murdering various indiginous people of the world. (Anything but brave heroes who are defending freedom) These are people who openly hoped that we would fail in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are people who will accept any idea, however foolish, if it enables them to feel good about themselves, for their need to feel morally superior to others is gargantuan. Remember, these are people who think it is wrong to execute a convicted murderer, but it’s OK to take the life of an unborn baby.

Defend us against terrorism? Hell, they can’t even make themselves say the word “terrorism.”

Their idea of an energy policy is to tell us to drive less, and wait for the wind.

Like I said, they could have consolidated their gains, if they had just acted sensibly.
Instead, they came up with a “Stimulus Package.” The stimulus package is a big, greasy pile of industrial sausage — chock full of wasteful nonsense, hilarious left-wing 1970s retreads, graft, payola, foolish wish-fulfillment, and pointless grandiosity. It’s not a bill; it’s a smash-and-grab. It stimulates nothing except contempt.

Hope? Change? My Butt!
It’s the same old playbook they’ve been using since the mid 60’s.
They’ve already blown it. It’s amateur hour in D.C.
I cannot wait for the midterm elections.

Marc Jeric| 3.26.09 @ 3:43PM

OK, David Mathews - you have done enough, we give up. You are now qualified to be elected to the Presidium of the Communist Party USA. Just a bit more time and your offensive, ultra-stupid outbursts here and you may well become our next General Secretary.
1) Green energy - this reminds me of the centuries spent by medieval alchemists working on perpetuum mobile, philosopher's stone of eternal life, and methods to transform lead into gold. Solar and wind, indeed; there is no there there, as somebody said a while ago (Gertrude Stein?) Cover 10,000 square miles with solar panels and you get enough power for 6 hours on sunny days to service Los Angeles; then hire 25,000 illegal aliens to wash down those panels every week, and make sure to transport them to that solar power plant by coolies. You see, when I was studying for my PhD at UCLA back in the 1960's I made a solar power project - faking it and inventing the numbers to fool my professor; I did not work but I got the necessary grade (A). Wind power is worse - a veritable Cuisinart for birds when they work which is about 25% of the time. Both cost about $24/megawatt-hour vs. $1.60 for nuclear power.
As for globaloney warming hoax which replaced the globaloney cooling scam of 30 years ago, we have now "climate change" flimflam, what with 11 years of substantial cooling. And all propagated by the same government-paid "scientists" - almost all rejects of private enterprise.
So, David, my brain-dead victim of commie propaganda - click on the Internet "Global Warming Petition Project" and "Manhattan Declaration" to read (it might take some time) the names of 32,000 real, independent scientists (including 10,000 PhD's among them) who state that human activities have nothing to do with our climate. And please, absorb it slowly - we do not want to overload your already stressed out brain cells.

George S| 3.26.09 @ 3:51PM

I, for one, am in love with ExxonMobil. They do something for me that I cannot do myself. They save me the trouble of grabbing a shovel, going in my backyard and digging 3,000 feet into the earth hoping to find a pocket of oil and then figuring out how to pump it up, build a cracking tower, refine it into gasoline, store it and pump it into my car. I would much rather pay them their 8.3 cent a gallon profit to save me that minor inconvenience.

After all, what possible harm can the CEO of ExxonMobil do to me so as to ruin my life? Or, a better way to ask that question is could a low-level bureaucrat at the EPA or an IRS agent having a bad day ruin my life? Put it all into perspective: we have needs and ExxonMobil fills some of those needs. What needs of OURS does Liberal Democrat energy policy meet other than that of those in power at the present? If it's to break a dependency on buying oil from people who despise us, well...how is developing our own against our interests?

All in all, being loved by the world takes a backseat to heating my home so my infant does not perish.

brutus| 3.26.09 @ 4:36PM

I'm really disappointed in Dave Mathews' puny efforts to insult every linear thinking capitalist on this website today. Couple days ago he spent 16 hours hurling insults at everyone. Maybe today mommy made him come up out of the basement and do some chores, earn his keep, so to speak. Or maybe he exhausted his welfare subsidy and can't restock his Redbull cabinet until next month. Or maybe he DID get his subsidy and he's back on his lithium. Who knows? Only Dave(ida) does.

brutus| 3.26.09 @ 4:48PM

Mr. Tucker, thanks for providing the link to your WSJ article. I've often wondered how the socialists in France could let their govt power their country with nukes, in light of all the grief we've seen with the neo-druids in the US over the waste disposal issue. I was not voting age in '76 and '77, and so missed the issue under Ford and Carter. Your's in the WSJ is the first story I've read giving any detail about reprocessing the waste. Otherwise, I've never seen a story in the MSM adressing the issue. In your future writings, please don't hesitate to give technical detail. Lib Democrats' eyes may glaze over, but we loyal TAS readers want to be informed; we want that detail. Thanks again.

Col. C. D Freeze| 3.26.09 @ 5:22PM

The Obamatons, most of congress, the Green tree huggers, and anti-americans dream of ways to depress our standard of living. If they have us living in huts and wearing loin cloths it would be too opulent for them, provided they are not bound to the same standards. Windmills, solar panels, and hydrogen are mechanisms in which to strangle the life out of our existence, and place us on the path to total government control. It’s an excuse not develop our domestic energy resources, and to leave us beholding to the middle east. Green renewable energy sounds wonderful when the smoke rings are being blown, but it is impractical as several here have pointed out. We’re debating energy production, and its use. There is another motive. Call it communism, socialism, what you will, but these people will settle for their way or no way. Control of farming is on their agenda to the extent that you cannot grow a small vegetable garden, California is outlawing black cars because of a heat absorption factor (?), your children are to be impressed by the GIVE act, and health care will eventually be rationed. Energy is just another prong of their disembowling thrust. This is a multifaceted attack on the American people. DM will emerge from his borrow to growl at anyone with his quasi facts and enuendos, but his actions are not to present a logical nor civil debate, it is only meant to provoke anger. A former boss once said, “Don’t get in a fight with a skunk for you will surely come out the worse.” What is of more concern is the conditions under which our children will soon live poluted atmosphere or otherwise.

Todd| 3.26.09 @ 6:31PM

O ne B ig A.$.$. M ess A merica

IwasaLiberalonce| 3.26.09 @ 8:34PM

Liberals are usually different. They we're beat up in high school a lot for not trying to play sports. They weren't popular with the ladies. Their liberal parents messed a lot of them up early. Most became gay. Vice versa for the girls. That misery and all those grudges they hold are the motivatation for promoting their philosophies. Let's socialize the country so nobody has any fun! Let's be miserable and whine about everything, that's boring. Let the past go in your life. Conservatives party! They live. If you're just into weird lifestyles and other highly immoral activities that the Lord Our God would find wrong, then move to a country without this foundation. God still loves you.

Paul Milenkovic| 3.26.09 @ 9:05PM

If you really think that global warming is the problem that it is purported to be, by all means let electricity become expensive. And let whatever amount of oil be imported into this country: it is a much cleaner fuel from the standpoint of greenhouse gas and everything else than coal. And be prepared to watch as wars are fought to protect its availability.

If you really think importing large amounts of oil is the problem, from the standpoint of balance of payments or the standpoint of foreign wars, for gosh sakes, build transmission line, build coal plants, build nuclear plants. Electricity does not power cars (yet), but it can power much of everything else and substitute for oil in home heating (heat pumps) and in manufacturing.

By siding with expensive electricity, Mr. Obama can count on fighting more wars. I am against war, and my motto is "No blood for polar bears."

Shawn | 3.26.09 @ 9:58PM

Anyone who wishes to see the effects of government energy policy and the law of unintended consequences needs look no further than the plains of western Minnesota, South and North Dakota. The mad rush to "go green" by requiring the use of ethanol fuel has resulted in the plowing and planting of millions of acres of grass lands (tremendous carbon sinks, if you consider that sort of thing important) into corn. The result is a huge increase in carbon released (see the University of Minnesota study) and destruction of wildlife habitat on a scale that is breathtaking in scale. For the sake of one manufactured crisis (global warming) they have created a real environmental crisis.

Dave Mathews| 3.26.09 @ 10:20PM

Only an azz-clown like Gore the bore could do something this stupid. Made the porky buffoon rich, though.

ClaireSolt| 3.27.09 @ 12:17AM

I am very offended by the assertion that gloming onto some new idea and pushing it is science. The scientific method tests hypotheses ato see how they pan out in experiments. The greens put untested ideas in catechisms and propagandize and legislate them.
Everyone is interested in alternative energy research, and there is lots of it. Throwing a lot of money into building out bad systems is a waste. Furthermore. outlawing conventional power will not hasten the day of innovation. It will just hurt people and their pocket books.

16MPG| 3.27.09 @ 7:48AM

Good article. But the fun fact destroying the pro wind/solar argument is the following: Currently, wind and solar provide less than 1% of total U.S. energy demand, predominantly satisfied by oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric and biofuels. Forecasting energy demand out to 2030, numerous studies show that if wind and solar were theoretically to grow by 20% per year, by the year 2050 its contribution to total U. S. energy demand would grow to the magnificent value of: 1%. This in part due to the limited availability of wind and solar to supply required energy and the growing need for more fungible energy sources like oil and natural gas. Credit goes to Stanford's Energy Research program and others for coming to this remarkable conclusion. Would someone please inform President Obama and Congress about their 1% solution?

Jeff | 3.27.09 @ 12:37PM

I am with Mike on this one. The Greenies and Libs are not the least bit interested in electric power . They are entirely dedicated to political power and this is a handy vehicle to take away other people's freedom and property rights.

Richard Baker| 3.28.09 @ 1:00PM

To David Matthews:
Do you think that the Laws of Physics have been repealed or suspended because the Messiah is among us? I used to teach Science in a High School and a student once argued with me that Electric cars would eliminate all auto pollution(we were talking of plug-in electrics). When I asked him where the power came from for this he said" Power-" and stopped because he realized that there WAS no free lunch. If I could get a 14 year old to realize the truth, why do adults seem to think that physics can be ignored? Shame on the adults for lying to the kids.

Frank Dugas| 3.30.09 @ 1:05AM

Wind farms are interesting the first time you see one. After that, they are useless eyesores. The amount of energy that goes into building a windfarm and the accompanying transmission lines is immense. The meager energy the winfarm creates takes literaly years to replace the energy required to create it. After that the dent it makes in the big picture is negligable at best.
God put coal, oil, gas, and uranium in the ground because he loves us. We should be gracious and cheerfully accept the gift.