Energy Policy

Friends: A few days ago Walt challenged me to propose something in the way of a
national energy policy instead of simply carping at the current proposal that
was not taken up by the Senate. I think it is a good challenge and wanted to
respond earlier but the end-of-semester time pressures have kept me otherwise
occupied.
I also do not pretend to know the full contours of a healthy energy policy,
nor do I know what is politically possible. Maybe something very similar to
what is currently being proposed in Congress is the only politically possible
policy at present.
But if I could have free reign to propose an energy policy, I would propose
one that would take the nation in a somewhat different direction. I believe
that we need to move in a direction that reduces our dependence of fossil fuels
- both for supply reasons, in the cases of oil and natural gas, reasons and for
environmental reasons , in the case of oil, natural gas, and coal.
So here are some of the things I would propose:
1. An increase in support for nuclear power, including support for the
development and construction of "inherently safe" nuclear reactor designs; a
significant part of this support would need to be directed toward public
education.
2. A significant increase in support for wind energy installations - the
"renewable" technology that has the most going for it.
3. An increase in support for "hybrid" transportation vehicles - (gasoline -
electrical)
4. Increased support for developing LNG facilities (I don't see how we can get
along without natural gas for the foreseeable future) and domestic supplies of
NG are not promising.
5. Increased support for "clean coal" (if that is not an oxymoron) research
programs which would need to include CO2 sequestration technologies.
6. Increased support for the development of an "all electrical" transport
vehicle (assuming the electrical energy is supplied by nuclear or renewable
primary sources).
7. Support for research into and development of biomass fuels (but probably
not corn to ethanol) - maybe switchgrass-based production or fast-growing
tree-based (poplar, willow) production using lands that are now idle or of
marginal quality for agriculture. (I think at best this could contribute only a
very modest amount to our energy future).
8. Increased support for basic energy research and engineering
9. Continuing support for solar photo-voltaic research
10. Increased support for conservation measures which might include any or all
of the following.
a. Rasing fuel efficiency standards for private and commercial vehicles
b. Support for commercial and home energy conservation ( installation of
insulation, efficient lighting, efficient heating and cooling systems,
efficient appliances)
c. support for inter- and intra-urban rapid transit systems.
d. Support for development of high-speed passenger rail systems.
e. Introduction of a carbon-tax on fossil fuels based on energy generated/unit
mass of Carbon produced. This tax would be off-set by reduction of other taxes
(income, excise) and would contain a circuit-breaker provision for low income
persons.

Things I would not support (although some of these are probably politically
necessary)
1. Increased tax subsidies for further oil, gas, and coal exploration and
extraction
2. Increased subsidies for hydrogen fuel-cell technologies. Unless we solve
the hydrogen generation problems without relying on fossil fuels, I see very
little positive in a hydrogen based energy system. And even if somehow we could
electrolyze water cost-effectively (say using nuclear or renewable energy
systems) we probably would be better off simply using the electrical energy
directly to power an electrical vehicle, rather than producing hydrogen gas
with all of its attendant problems of safe transport and storage, distribution
network, and so forth.
3. Proposals to open ANWR for oil exploration and extraction.

These are some of the things that come to mind with respect to an energy
policy. No doubt some of you will disagree with me, and some of you probably
have far better ideas. I would be interested in hearing form either side.
respectfully,
ken piers
Received on Thu Dec 11 12:36:21 2003