Al ..Forbes.com
There Is No Energy Crisis
By Dan Ackman<<<
I have no idea what Dan is trying to say here. In on paragraph he is trying to say conservation is the answer, and in the next he proves that energy usage has gone up despite conservation. The truth is we need both, more energy and conservation.
Cheney's solution to the "potential crisis," which he blamed largely on the
Clinton Administration, is to drill more, mine more, generate more and build
more nuclear plants. He nodded to "conservation," but essentially mocked it as "a sign of personal virtue"--<
And so far according to your last post, Cheney is right. Motorists this summer have been getting a break at the gas pump after world crude oil prices eased and refiners rushed to fill "shortages" that developed during the spring." <<<<
Later on Ackerman statesBut the facts are something different. Between 1980 and 2000, despite a 90% increase in real gross domestic
product (GDP), energy consumption increased by just 25.6%.
You will note energy usage went up 25.6% despite a good conservation effort.
The massive decline in energy use relative to
economic output was not a function of price increases. Indeed, during that time energy prices rose by 44.8%, and most of that price rise was in the last two years.
The energy price increase was tiny compared to nonenergy prices, which rose by 119%. <<<<<<<<
And this. Conservation has played the critical role in managing demand, says John Byrne, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of
Delaware. "The vice president says conservation is a sign of personal virtue and says we can't rely on that. But that's not what conservation is about," Byrne says.
Conservation, Byrne says, "is not about turning off the lights or unplugging the refrigerator. It is a story about better technology." Industry and economics, not virtue
or government control, are the driving forces. <<<<<
Which is exactly right. Conservation is about better technology; not gov. programs. When the technology is there, conservation,( such as higher mileage cars, along with higher gas prices), will do naturally what the environmentalists are trying to do through gov programs. That is what nuclear is all about. A clean source of energy made safe with better technology. It is time to embrace the better technology; or at least start a pilot program to see if the new nuclear designs work as advertised. The waste problem will also be solved through better technology. It isn't here yet, but it will. In the mean time, because the amount of waste is small in relative terms, it can be stored safely above or below ground until a solution is found. Nuclear probably will also be a short term solution as fusion, the mother of all clean energy sources, could be viable within 50 yrs.
The reason Americans have become so much more energy efficient is because of appliances, buildings and factories. Refrigerators, lamps, air conditioners and pulp
and paper plants have all become far more energy efficient.<<<<
You will also note that GDP went up 90% , and despite a good conservation effort, energy usage went up by 25.6%. Which is exactly what Cheney said. Conservation won't do it alone. You will also note that, there has been a massive effort to conserve in this country to conserve, which all of the environmentalists are trying to ignore, because that would disprove their conservation can do it alone theory.
"There is no energy shortage," says R. Martin Chavez, chief executive of Kiodex , which supplies software to companies for managing their exposure to energy
costs. "There is so much oil and natural gas in the ground. There are more known reserves now than there ever has been." <<<<
B I N G O Exactly again what Cheney was saying. The oil and natural gas are out there, we just need to drill and mine for them.
One of the hot-button issues in energy policy is whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Whatever the merits of this plan environmentally, the
case remains that just slight increases in automobile fuel efficiency would conserve far more oil than the U.S. could ever hope to extract from the Alaskan preserve<<<<<<<
This is true on its face. But it doesn't alter the fact that despite a good effort on conservation, as pointed out by this article; energy usage has gone up by 25.6 % since 1980, and we eventually will need the reserves in ANWR. You could say we don't need them today, but eventually we will; its just a matter of time.
No amount of drilling in Alaska or anywhere else is likely to have any impact on the crisis in California, a product not of fuel shortages but of a half-baked attempt at deregulation.
Then why is Gray Davis blaming GW for not imposing more regulation on prices. CAL energy crisis was started in CA. by Californians. GW had nothing to do with it. But he high gasoline prices we experienced last summer were caused by shortages of gas which were caused by low prices earlier. In other words, gas prices haven't kept up with inflation. Precisely what Cheney said. Higher prices will lead to more drilling and more reserves which will lower prices in the long run.
Also, most of the oil drilled in Alaska is now exported to Japan, which is far more exposed to world energy markets than the U.S. <<<<<<
This is true, but it is because of logistics. It is shorter to ship the oil from Alaska to Japan, and ship the same amount of oil from the middle east to the east coast; than it is to ship the oil from Alaska to the east coast, and ship middle east oil to Japan. See, even big oil is trying to conserve.
The idea that there is a crisis or a "situation [that] will take years for us to overcome" was a "stunner," Byrne says. "The objective evidence is just against it."
It depends upon what one is trying to define as a crisis. Cheney was talking about drilling and mining, Byrne is talking about the known reserves, as if ANWR was already drilled and on line. We need more drilling to get the known reserves on line; and more exploratory drilling to find more. Both Byne and Cheney agree that energy usage will go up even with a good conservation effort. |
