America's energy policy: Thirty five wasted years

Historical context: An issue America faces is its dependence on the foreign oil we need to keep our economy running. We were fully warned by the 1973 oil embargo and the 1967 oil embargo. Instead of attacking the problem America went to sleep and did nothing until recently under President Obama. Our energy problem is just another political failure in a long list of failures since the end of the second World War. One can argue and defend the opinion that our political institutions, including the Democratic and Republican parties, failed us and betrayed us. Now we may be waking up.

Wind power

There is serious political chatter about renewable and clean energy sources. Its about time. Decades overdue actually. One focus is on wind energy. Being a neutral, unbiased and pragmatic observer, it appears that wind energy may be a diversion from where we need to focus. Maybe it is mostly a waste of tax dollars. Some research into this situation suggests that that is essentially true unless, maybe, we look at wind power with more sophistication.

The essence of the wind "solution"

Problems with wind energy include one of inconsistent power output. If you rely on wind to supply about X% of the power to the local grid, you have to have about X% in backup generation capacity when the wind stops blowing. That would be fine, if starting and stopping a backup power was efficient.

But it apparently isn't. Backups either neutralize carbon savings from wind or increase them over emissions from what standard carbon based generators alone would produce. No coal fired power plant in the U.S. has closed as an offset to wind power. It looks like there is little or no upside for our economy or environment from wind energy.

Solutions to that have been proposed (e.g., in a Scientific American [SA] article about 1-2 years ago). SA discussed using wind energy to run air compressors to keep air in huge, stable underground holes. By increasing air pressure when the wind blows, generators run by compressed air from underground generates electricity when the wind isn't blowing. That is, at least as long as there is sufficient air pressure. That allows one to make the output constant, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for backup generation of some sort. In theory at least.

So far, I am aware of no progress on this front. Batteries are too weak to be seriously considered. Major advances in battery science will be needed for that. Batteries are struggling to run modest electric cars with the minimum performance needed for consumer acceptance, although there may be differences of opinion (see page 8) for modest (100 MW) outputs.

Early on, the Netherlands made large bets on wind energy, but is now walking away from wind and other renewable energy sources in favor of nuclear power. Some U.S. analysts caution against wind energy, despite a vigorous defense from the American Wind Energy Association.

Bring on the spin

As with essentially all contested issues in politics, the wind energy field is larded with spin (lies**) from people pushing hidden and open agendas. The Baltimore Sun recently said:

"Proponents of wind almost never compare industrial wind to nuclear power, probably because in every aspect of electricity generation, nuclear beats wind by a long shot. The following are informative comparisons. . . . . After coal, nuclear is the least costly generator of electricity for the ratepayer. After solar, wind is the most expensive. . . . . . Should inefficient industrial wind be pushed blindly, given its potential for greatly increasing our energy bills, requiring up to 50 percent taxpayer investment, and causing enormous environmental damage?"

The bias of an unspun, pragmatic realist

My bias is simple. I favor whatever works here and now in terms of balancing (i) consumer cost, (ii) local environmental concerns and (iii) global climate change concerns. Job creation backing the "wrong bet", e.g. wind energy, isn't a big factor. If wind energy made sense, that's fine and I would support it. It doesn't make sense, so I don't. Ditto for ethanol from corn. To me, those three seem to be the main factors. Our economy desperately needs cheap energy to compete with hungry, ferocious low-cost competitors like China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Although it may be a low probability event, e.g., one in ten thousand or even one in a million, global climate change could cause the end of the human species. That risk, although of a low, unknown degree, deserves respect because the worst case consequences are so bad, i.e., we go extinct. I do not like that scenario.

I support research into whatever may have big payoff potential for our economy and the climate. That includes fusion research, which is the real holy grail here. Unfortunately, fusion is still decades off, if it can ever help. Battery research makes sense, especially if electric cars can drain away significant oil imports in the next couple of decades. Short of that, it looks like nuclear power is the only choice that can now reliably deliver power that we need right now.

Sure, some environmentalists will squawk. Let 'em. We need thousands of gigawatts of cheap energy right now. Environmentalists have no immediate answers. Puny amounts of energy from composting organic carrot shavings, foul biodegradable diapers or whatever other feeble nonsense hard core environmentalists demand is irrelevant. In terms of energy and therefore our economy, we are up to our eyeballs in nasty alligators.

Square peg, round hole

There is another consideration. Its the "wind energy creates jobs" argument. That argument is heard and understood. It is not persuasive. Why? Common sense, not a Ph.D. in economics or physics.

Regardless of how well meaning, if government-backed industry and jobs aren't competitive, they go away when tax subsidies go away. The low cost provider wins, regardless of whether or not it is backed by tax dollars or is eco-friendly. Market distortion from politics or corruption, e.g., a bias against competitive nuclear power in favor of uncompetitive wind, can slow forces of nature (the economy) only as long as tax dollars support it.

Unless some new technology comes up, wind energy looks like a loser. If that is true, American tax dollars are mostly wasted in the effort. That doesn't mean that no support should go there - money should go to the finest, best American scientists in the field. But, it does mean an cold, honest, unbiased assessment. As of now, it looks like we waste too many scarce, precious research and incentive tax dollars on wind. Without external market distortion, e.g., subsidies, disconnected from real competitiveness you cannot pound an economic square peg into an economic round hole.

Regrets and lessons

It is regrettable that over the past 35 years or so, America led by its elected leaders and its political institutions failed to make energy independence a serious national security (i.e., economic) priority. We were warned about what might come if we were to become energy dependent, but we did nothing. Well, now we are energy dependent. We cannot go back and undo our mistakes. At best, maybe we can learn something.

One regret: One regret is that America didn't pursue research into nuclear fusion as a high national security priority. If we had been doing that since the mid 1970s (about 35 years ago), maybe by now we would have (i) figured out how to make it work or (ii) discovered limitations of nature/ technology to prove it will not work soon or ever. Too bad. Another precious opportunity lost.

Another regret: Maybe electricity from more standard nuclear power plants would not have completely replaced imported oil, which contributes to our endless trade deficit (about $253 billion for oil in 2009 alone). Having cheap energy in the American economy maybe would have shaved a a trillion or so off our negative balance of trade over those precious, 35 wasted years. That assumes that electric car/ truck development could have kept improving. That's not an unreasonable assumption, if things like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, are reasonable examples of where we could go if we were serious. That lost trillion overwhelmingly went to our enemies/ neutrals. It helped them when it should have stayed here and helped us.

First lesson: First, if Americans take their eyes off the political ball, like we have for national energy policy, our politicians and special interests will act in their own interest. That is why we are vulnerable and bleeding massive amounts of wealth. We are paying dearly for our failure to force our elected leaders to do their jobs. Even if Jefferson didn't say it, the price of freedom is eternal diligence. Diligence against who? Foreign enemies? Yes, sometimes. But always, always diligence against our own government.

Second lesson: Free market forces in the U.S. have pretty much had their way, decades of time and the biggest, best economy on Earth and other major advantages since the end of the second World War. Despite the relative advantages and freedom, the free market did not save us in terms of new ways to generate clean, low cost energy for our economy. For the most part, the private sector doesn't care about us, fusion energy or the environment. They focus on the next quarterly report, not our welfare.

In their defense: In defense of real world capitalist markets, no one should have expected more from them than what they delivered. Their job is to make money, not to make the world a better place. If a business is too soft there are shareholder lawsuits or a takeover or bankruptcy at the hands of more ruthless competitors. That's the point of competition.

In theory, government is there to protect the public interest without destroying private interests. Its a balancing act. The private sector can help some but defense of the public interest has to come mainly from what government can do, e.g., public education, public safety or environmental laws. What society demands helps some as well.

Regardless, we are in the situation we are now in. We could be in a much better position if we had had competent politics and political leaders. But we didn't. The inept Democratic and Republican parties failed us. Now we are paying for it.

----------------------------------------

** My definition of a lie (spin) in politics means (1) a regular lie and (2) withholding fair counterpoints, facts and arguments that undermine or contradict what a spinner argues. What advocates/ spinners don't say is usually more important than what they do say. That is routine politics for both political parties and most (not all) powerful special interests. In the meantime, us poor, mushroom taxpayers are kept in the warm, moist dark and get fed interesting but funny-smelling nutrient sources.