Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomas who wrote (64329)	4/11/2000 6:28:00 PM
From: Tomas	Respond to of 95453

Energy policy low priority in presidential debate - Houston Business Journal, April 10 Dr. Warren T. Longmire Jr You wouldn't know it from listening to either Al Gore or George W. Bush on the campaign trail, but there is such a thing as energy policy, and the next president is going to have to face it. OPEC's unseemly intrusion into our nation's economy is just a reminder that the world doesn't operate on the U.S. election cycle. Nor can we take comfort from President Clinton's efforts to persuade OPEC to increase oil production levels, since imports account for 55 percent of the oil we consume, and our dependence is growing. Every other suggested response to high oil prices seems inadequate -- roll back the federal tax on gasoline, tap the strategic petroleum reserve, block the relatively small amount of oil that America exports, open up wildlife sanctuaries to oil production. Each one would be an unwise and unnecessary move, since none would do much to reduce our nation's vulnerability to OPEC oil shocks. The shame of it is that there are important, difficult energy issues about which there ought to be a national debate. But Gore and Bush avoid discussing them because the issues are complex and might imply the need for sacrifice by the American people. These candidates seem just to want to win, not to gain a mandate to do anything with their victory. Maybe that has always been so, but winning without a mandate makes it harder to govern. The energy policy issues the next president will have to face are of consequence. How to deal with a militarily unpredictable but oil-rich Iraq and politically unstable Iran are matters critical to America's energy security. What can be done to expand production in the oil-rich Caspian Sea? Unlike Haiti or even Kosovo, these are not on the periphery of U.S. interests. And while the United States can affect the behavior of key oil-producing countries like Russia only on the margins, there are times when even marginal differences can be crucial. Energy policy doesn't stop with oil. Developing non-polluting, alternative energy sources deserves to be high on our nation's agenda. But how can we make that happen when political barriers remain? What economic policies can induce utilities to revive nuclear power if every attempt to build a central storage facility for nuclear waste fails? Is either candidate talking about the government's legal responsibility to take possession of spent fuel being stored at scores of nuclear power plants around the country? Recently, Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, took issue with the Department of Energy's budget proposal for fiscal year 2001. He asked Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson about DOE's budget priorities. "I fail to understand why the focus of your budget is not on reducing our dependence on foreign oil," Murkowski said to the energy secretary. Among his specific criticisms of the budget request is its disproportionate research and development funding for renewable energy resources -- $452 million to support solar, wind and biomass -- compared to the $40 million requested for nuclear energy research and development. You might never know from the scant attention it receives from Washington policy makers, but nuclear energy supplies 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs and is the largest source of emission-free electricity, while solar, wind and biomass together supply less than 1 percent of total electric output. New electro-technologies can substitute for the direct burning of oil, thereby heading off oil shortages that could stifle our economy. But utilities today are unwilling to build base-load power plants of any kind, whether coal or nuclear. They can't with absurd regulation. They can't if we continue giving into not-in-my-backyard zealots, so that nuclear waste needs to be stored at scores of nuclear plant sites around the country, instead of at one central repository in Nevada. They can't if the Environmental Protection Agency regulates coal-fired plants retroactively, so that utilities face huge fines under the Clean Air Act for routine repair and maintenance work dating back to the early 1970s. The pendulum needs to swing back. The public interest requires a balanced energy strategy, but neither candidate has yet to define what our nation's energy policy should be. It's a good starting point for debate. Warren Longmire is a practicing family physician in Hitchcock. bizjournals.com