Entry 798, on 2008-06-19 at 21:20:14 (Rating 3, Politics)
The issue of offshore oil drilling has recently arisen in the US, mainly as a result of comments from the Republican party who are accused of using the idea of providing cheap oil from offshore wells as a bribe to voters. In New Zealand everyone seems to have noticed that the gradually increasing price of fuel has finally reached a point where its really starting to affect people. Clearly things are going badly for global energy production, so what's the answer?
Well, for a start, putting a lot of money into further exploration for oil may not be a good choice. There is a significant delay between the start of the search and significant production, plus that strategy will result in more oil but it won't necessarily be cheap because of extraction costs, plus it will result in more carbon emissions, and finally it might divert investment in alternative energy sources.
So what are the alternatives? We need oil because its a convenient fuel for vehicles and aircraft but we should avoid using it for power production where reasonable alternatives exist (for example, nuclear). Other energy production systems are more expensive than oil right now so that needs to change.
Subsidies and other measures might be the answer. I know that anything contrary to the mantra of the free market will be rejected by many people but we can't afford to let political opinions get in the way. The same applies to the use of nuclear energy which is now very clean and safe. If the people who reject nuclear power haven't caught up with the new technology then their opinions should be ignored.
So I say we should be looking at a balanced strategy. Look for new oil reserves but don't solely rely on those discoveries. Throw lots of money at universities and other research organisations who are looking at alternative fuel systems, and subsidise alternative fuels which are renewable and don't produce emissions: wind and solar are the obvious examples.
And if we are going to be investigating alternative fuels let's look at them based on their genuine scientific merits and not on whether they can be used to score political points. Ethanol production from food crops is one of the most stupid ideas I have ever heard. We would be better to not even try than to use alternative sources like that.
And let's try to get the world population under control. One of the major reasons we don't have enough energy is that we have too many people wanting a share of the energy we do have. Serious political effort needs to be put in to fixing this problem, and if organisations like the Catholic Church reject birth control they should be ignored.
Its time to get tough on all groups with out of date, irrelevant, or self interested agendas, such as extreme environmentalists, big business, religious organisations, and believers new age naturalism should just politely be asked to avoid comment on an issue which is far too important to be corrupted by their input.
I like your post but have a small quibble over nuclear energy:
The problem with nuclear power is not so much with the cleanliness and safety (although I think there are still issues there when you look at how long half-life really is and how fallible human engineering has proven). Rather, it is a problem of time and money. To get a new plant sited, designed, approved, and built in the US is probably at least a decade-long process. The cost of each plant is between $10-18 billion.
Consider all of that time and money and in the end, the scheme does not help much with carbon emissions. Indeed nuclear does not emit CO2 but the plans in the US are basically to use nukes to augment the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, not replace it. Therefore we only slow the growth of, rather than reduce, our already unsustainable CO2 output. Again, that is all 10 years and $10B from now at best.
The same billions of dollars for a new plant spent instead on conservation and efficiency technologies can eliminate the need for the amount of power that the new nuke would generate in the first place. In doing so, such an approach reduces the load on existing coal plants and thereby actually reduces GHG emissions. To make it more attractive, the dollar savings of energy per kWh will ultimately pay for the necessary retrofitting investments making the scheme even more cost effective for businesses and homes. Compare that with the huge investment risk that a nuclear plant poses (massive cost overruns, high operational expenses, long-term waste management etc.) even with the very generous and very unfree-market subsidies that the government pumps into the industry. As a whole, the nuclear industry has proven a colossal financial failure with few historic rivals.
As the US will likely always need a growth of power capacity--even with aggressive conservation--there are increasingly viable renewables that can be brought on line far more quickly and cheaply than nukes. Yes, they each have some issues but fewer than nuclear, no matter how much safer it has gotten.
I am happy to see the NZ is now about 75% renewable. When I was there a couple of years ago I saw a geothermal plant by Lake Taupo and the hydro down at Manapouri. I understand the goal is to be 95% renewable in the not-so-far future. The US suffers from a disgraceful lack of leadership and responsibility on energy.
Some links for reference:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid257.php
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-06-20 at 20:42:00:
I accept your point regarding the construction time for nuclear plants and how conservation measures could reduce demand, but I think both of those measures are necessary. Looking back at the original post I didn't mention conservation at all, which was my bad! I think greater efficiency is a very worthwhile path.
But even if conservation reduces the speed at which new plants are required there will still be a need for new generation. That shouldn't be through coal. If there is a 10 year lead time for nuclear then now is the time to start. In 10 years the modern plants could reduce the need for coal or even be used as a substitute for older nuclear plants which could be shut down.
My point was that not employing a technology like nuclear just because it sounds scary is not a good way forward. I detected just a small amount of emotion in your argument when you refer to nuclear as "nukes" for example! :)
Comment 3 by esc1144 on 2008-06-21 at 16:38:59:
Funny you mention "nukes." I actually used it because I was bored typing and reading "nuclear plants." I even considered revising that out after I wrote it but I don't really view the term as pejorative. I suppose it can be a hot button (so to speak) in the debate. Generally, I do take pains to avoid weasel words in more formal writing.
I completely agree on frustration with people who dismiss or advocate something without doing the work to understand the position. That applies to people with whom I disagree or agree in principle. The lack of depth just weakens the quality of the overall debate. We cannot have true progress without comprehensive and critical analysis of our reality. The use of unsubstantiated scare tactics to persuade is the province of religion and propaganda. Your blog makes that point frequently and effectively.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-06-21 at 22:06:25:
OK, I accept "nukes" could easily be just a shorthand for nuclear plants. You can see my point though, that its more often used to mean nuclear weapons! Just changing the language of a statement on a difficult subject like this can make a big difference!
Comment 5 by esc1144 on 2008-06-25 at 08:46:14:
Point taken. FYI, I will be tweeting a few opinions/facts on nuclear power in the upcoming weeks as I do a little more research. They will be civil in tone and based on information gleaned from credible sources (I'll even avoid using "nukes" despite the 140 character limit). They are for Twitter and my few followers at large so please do not take them as personal, deliberate affronts to your position. You obviously put thought and research into your work and have no agenda but for the advancement of rational dialog and human progress. I respect that.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-06-25 at 10:54:42:
I don't take affront at anyone who disagrees with me. According to the sources I have recently read modern nuclear plants are very safe and produce little waste, but I do want to hear alternative views. One thing I have found from years of discussing contentious issues is that you should always hear every side of the story. If there is reason to doubt the safety of nuclear power (and its backed up by real facts) then I want to hear about it.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE