Letter to Congress - Support for Offshore Drilling and Alternative Energy
The July 16th Houston Chronicle has an editorial with the title "Faulty dilemma" and the subheading "The U.S. needs more offshore drilling and an Apollo-scale program to develop alternative energy sources".
In response to this editorial, I sent the following comments to the Houston Chronicle, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas and Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
"Faulty Dilemma - Good Start"
Congress currently has the lowest approval rating ever recorded. I think the lack of respect for Congress is due to their constant bickering, party politics and clear lack of action. Many of us have come to expect little from Congress – and we are getting it.
We all like cheap energy because it helps make our lives better. But, the worst case facing us involves the potential for many wars over food, water and energy because they are tightly interconnected and are needed for survival.
For the security and wellbeing of the U.S. and perhaps the world, we need to get better control over our supply and demand for energy. Conservation is always the most cost effective. We don't need to generate energy that we don't use.
Petroleum is going to be a major source of energy for most of our lifetimes. The increasing demand for oil, especially in China and India, will ease some as the price goes up. However, I don't expect we will get much price relief ever. The steps we take today will not likely lower the price of oil, but rather slow the growth in the price of oil.
Let's keep a few items in mind. The security of our country and our ability to defend ourselves largely depend on our ability to relocate our troops and supplies by air and to support them and attack our enemies from the air. I do not now of any viable energy source today or in the lab that can power jets (weather military or commercial) other than jet fuel. So we do need to have the petroleum for both military and commercial aviation. And near term, we probably need to have diesel fuel for long haul trucking.
Other than aviation, I think the best uses of petroleum are for chemicals (including pharmaceuticals) and plastics. Coal and maybe shale and biomass can also be sources of hydrocarbons for these needs. We should consider reducing burning of oil and gas not only because of concerns about emissions, but because of the higher value long term uses for these raw materials. For nearly everything else, electricity works well. We already have the distribution systems throughout most of our country for electricity. Most other energy sources require the use of oil to transport them.
We need to take advantage of all viable sources of electricity. Coal is relatively cheap, but CO2 emissions are considered a problem. Nuclear, especially liquid metal-cooled breeder reactors, needs to be back in the mix. Wind is becoming cost effective in many parts of the country. Solar panels also are becoming cost competitive. However, we need to do more to step up the use of these technologies.
The electric car and light truck are feasible with today's technology. The EV1 and the current Tesla prove that. They are still somewhat expensive, but with some improvements in technology, some support from the government to subsidize the cost for some lower income people and small business and with the economies of scale from producing millions rather
than hundreds, we can get there. For me, the biggest obstacle is range.
When I visit family, I drive about a 1000 miles, sometimes in one day. An electric car with a range of 200 miles that takes 3 hours to recharge is not attractive to me. So, we need some battery and recharging research. We have national labs that can help. Incentives for the private sector to improve technology would help. I like the idea of a contest that rewards results rather than just rewarding effort. One idea is to take a battery pack like the one designed for the Tesla and work with industry and the government to develop a standard pack that can be easily replaced. Then we could have service stations at least along the interstates where, for a fee, I could have my discharged battery pack replaced with a fresh one - an exchange program like many people have for propane tanks. We could also have parking meters in cities, shopping centers, at restaurants and motels, etc. where I could plug in my car for a fee. Of course we will need some sort of security and locking mechanism since there will always be people who want something for free.
Congress still provides large subsidies for programs that currently make little sense. We subsidize the production of ethanol for fuel and put a large tariff on imported ethanol that is cheaper. Congress also continues large subsidies on farm products including tobacco. If these subsidies are eliminated, farming of marginal land will be eliminated. Prices will rise somewhat to balance. However, eliminating the ethanol subsidy will help offset this rise.
Then, let’s use the same amount of money to subsidize the installation of wind and solar facilities. We can start with schools. Many schools in the U.S. are closed during the summer so can minimize the use of lighting and air conditioning at a time of year where solar panels will be generating the most energy. Let the schools sell the power and keep the
money. Combining this step with reductions in property taxes would be easy to sell to voters.
I’ve been reading some comments on the PickensPlan web site. Hawaii, California and other states currently or in the past have had programs to pay for up to 50% of the cost of solar panels for homes. Of course these states also have high electricity prices. But as with much of the technology that involves electronics, the prices may come down quickly
especially as the volume of production rises.
The key points are that we have alternatives and if they choose, Congress and state governments can help. We need to take advantage of all of them. Some we could start today (solar). Some will take time (drilling for oil). But for our sake and for the sake of future generations, let’s at least start moving.
Congress appears to be allowing the small federal tax credit for solar facilities to expire at the end of this year. Why? One proposal is to continue the 30% subsidy, but remove the $2,000 cap. Let’s do that. Also, make net-metering (or net-billing) a requirement for all states and all generators (including co-ops).
Let’s stop subsidizing ethanol. I know some will suffer who built plants or work in them, but it will only get worse if we continue the subsidy. Remove the tariff on ethanol imports. If Brazil can make ethanol from sugar cheaper than we can from oil and they are willing to sell it to us, let’s do it. It makes more sense then increasing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
And let’s start drilling for oil. It is not going to solve the problem by itself, but it can and should be part of the solution. Oil companies are in business to make money. If they aren’t drilling on existing leases when oil is $140/barrel, it is because they don’t believe there are commercial quantities on these leases. So, we need to let them do the job they do so well. Or we can wait for Congress to nationalize the oil companies like Venezuela and see what they do with the business.
Americans can make this happen. Is Congress willing to help?
In response to this editorial, I sent the following comments to the Houston Chronicle, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas and Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
Congress currently has the lowest approval rating ever recorded. I think the lack of respect for Congress is due to their constant bickering, party politics and clear lack of action. Many of us have come to expect little from Congress – and we are getting it.
We all like cheap energy because it helps make our lives better. But, the worst case facing us involves the potential for many wars over food, water and energy because they are tightly interconnected and are needed for survival.
For the security and wellbeing of the U.S. and perhaps the world, we need to get better control over our supply and demand for energy. Conservation is always the most cost effective. We don't need to generate energy that we don't use.
Petroleum is going to be a major source of energy for most of our lifetimes. The increasing demand for oil, especially in China and India, will ease some as the price goes up. However, I don't expect we will get much price relief ever. The steps we take today will not likely lower the price of oil, but rather slow the growth in the price of oil.
Let's keep a few items in mind. The security of our country and our ability to defend ourselves largely depend on our ability to relocate our troops and supplies by air and to support them and attack our enemies from the air. I do not now of any viable energy source today or in the lab that can power jets (weather military or commercial) other than jet fuel. So we do need to have the petroleum for both military and commercial aviation. And near term, we probably need to have diesel fuel for long haul trucking.
Other than aviation, I think the best uses of petroleum are for chemicals (including pharmaceuticals) and plastics. Coal and maybe shale and biomass can also be sources of hydrocarbons for these needs. We should consider reducing burning of oil and gas not only because of concerns about emissions, but because of the higher value long term uses for these raw materials. For nearly everything else, electricity works well. We already have the distribution systems throughout most of our country for electricity. Most other energy sources require the use of oil to transport them.
We need to take advantage of all viable sources of electricity. Coal is relatively cheap, but CO2 emissions are considered a problem. Nuclear, especially liquid metal-cooled breeder reactors, needs to be back in the mix. Wind is becoming cost effective in many parts of the country. Solar panels also are becoming cost competitive. However, we need to do more to step up the use of these technologies.
The electric car and light truck are feasible with today's technology. The EV1 and the current Tesla prove that. They are still somewhat expensive, but with some improvements in technology, some support from the government to subsidize the cost for some lower income people and small business and with the economies of scale from producing millions rather
than hundreds, we can get there. For me, the biggest obstacle is range.
When I visit family, I drive about a 1000 miles, sometimes in one day. An electric car with a range of 200 miles that takes 3 hours to recharge is not attractive to me. So, we need some battery and recharging research. We have national labs that can help. Incentives for the private sector to improve technology would help. I like the idea of a contest that rewards results rather than just rewarding effort. One idea is to take a battery pack like the one designed for the Tesla and work with industry and the government to develop a standard pack that can be easily replaced. Then we could have service stations at least along the interstates where, for a fee, I could have my discharged battery pack replaced with a fresh one - an exchange program like many people have for propane tanks. We could also have parking meters in cities, shopping centers, at restaurants and motels, etc. where I could plug in my car for a fee. Of course we will need some sort of security and locking mechanism since there will always be people who want something for free.
Congress still provides large subsidies for programs that currently make little sense. We subsidize the production of ethanol for fuel and put a large tariff on imported ethanol that is cheaper. Congress also continues large subsidies on farm products including tobacco. If these subsidies are eliminated, farming of marginal land will be eliminated. Prices will rise somewhat to balance. However, eliminating the ethanol subsidy will help offset this rise.
Then, let’s use the same amount of money to subsidize the installation of wind and solar facilities. We can start with schools. Many schools in the U.S. are closed during the summer so can minimize the use of lighting and air conditioning at a time of year where solar panels will be generating the most energy. Let the schools sell the power and keep the
money. Combining this step with reductions in property taxes would be easy to sell to voters.
I’ve been reading some comments on the PickensPlan web site. Hawaii, California and other states currently or in the past have had programs to pay for up to 50% of the cost of solar panels for homes. Of course these states also have high electricity prices. But as with much of the technology that involves electronics, the prices may come down quickly
especially as the volume of production rises.
The key points are that we have alternatives and if they choose, Congress and state governments can help. We need to take advantage of all of them. Some we could start today (solar). Some will take time (drilling for oil). But for our sake and for the sake of future generations, let’s at least start moving.
Congress appears to be allowing the small federal tax credit for solar facilities to expire at the end of this year. Why? One proposal is to continue the 30% subsidy, but remove the $2,000 cap. Let’s do that. Also, make net-metering (or net-billing) a requirement for all states and all generators (including co-ops).
Let’s stop subsidizing ethanol. I know some will suffer who built plants or work in them, but it will only get worse if we continue the subsidy. Remove the tariff on ethanol imports. If Brazil can make ethanol from sugar cheaper than we can from oil and they are willing to sell it to us, let’s do it. It makes more sense then increasing our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
And let’s start drilling for oil. It is not going to solve the problem by itself, but it can and should be part of the solution. Oil companies are in business to make money. If they aren’t drilling on existing leases when oil is $140/barrel, it is because they don’t believe there are commercial quantities on these leases. So, we need to let them do the job they do so well. Or we can wait for Congress to nationalize the oil companies like Venezuela and see what they do with the business.
Americans can make this happen. Is Congress willing to help?
Tags: alternative fuels, electric cars, ethanol, offshore drilling
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Jim Pettit on July 24, 2008 at 4:42pm -
Here is a Letter I sent to Congress actually it was written before I joined the PickensPlan however there may be some useful comments.
Dear>>>
I know there is nothing new in the comments below concerning our current ENERGY CRISIS. I do however wish to make my concerns known. Mr. T. Boone Pickens on 22 July discussed many of these issues and thanks for your efforts in getting these issues out for discussion and action. We do need action.
This email expresses my deep concern over the current energy situation and our need to take corrective action NOW--Taking action to implement energy independence. We are in a deepening energy and financial crisis, with no immediate solutions on the horizon. NONE! And I am afraid our economy and well being are at risk. For this reason the following comments and opinions are presented.
Nature of the Crisis
We are transferring enormous wealth out of the country by purchasing foreign fuel ($600 billion a year -- total insanity).
We are putting our economy at risk servicing the rising fuel cost.
We are in a box with no short-term options.
Our standard of living and way of life are threatened - they will decline and some major businesses will not make it (GM Ford little guys)
We have no plan in place to achieve energy sufficiency the government seems to have no skin in the game?
Time is not on our side.
We have no alternatives (now readily available).
We need a comprehensive program of energy independence starting with a bold announcement like Roosevelt did after Peal Harbor.
We need action like this is Peal Harbor all over again. It really is! The fall out from a sinking economy will be greater than Peal Harbor and 911.
The Enemy
The enemy is the lack of leadership
The enemy is inaction.
The enemy is the lack of focus on results, where results are measured in replacement barrels or equivalents.
The enemy is bureaucratic barriers impeding progress (legal precision).
The enemy is studies, committees, and impact statements viewgraphs, computer simulations red tape driving inaction. We need a robust alternate fuels production capability replacing foreign energy sources - implemented on an emergency basis. What has to happen to accomplish this?
Energy Alternatives and Conservation
The reason for the letter is the need to ACT NOW to get energy sourcing under control. Our oil dependency is causing serious inflation; weakening the dollar, impairing the economy and could negate our military. The military is dead in the water without fuel. We have the technical capabilities and natural resources to develop energy independence - we need leadership and action now.
600 Billion Dollars Down the Drain (this is appalling)
The 600 billion dollars a year flowing out of the country for oil is crazy (no Stanford MBA needed here). We need to keep this money in our country. This money should be spent domestically on locally produced energy i.e. nuclear power, alternate fuels etc. The Government should make the investments necessary to produce energy domestically. Because, no one else has the resources to make this happen! A Manhattan type Project should be undertaken immediately developing massive new technologies supporting domestic sourcing. Such a program will also build confidence, strengthen the currency and spin off new industries. There are legions of non-productive government spending to redirect to this program. (Shut down non-productive Government Agencies if necessary). An energy independence program will drive new technologies developing alternate fuels, improve vehicle gas mileage, and develop conservation techniques. We can and must find our way out of energy dependency. What are our national laboratories working on? Can they be redirected and inspired with a sense of urgency? Below are common sense suggestions for mitigating the energy crisis.
Conservation
1.0 Phase out heating oil (makes sense)
Transition all heating oil applications to Natural Gas LPG, coal or electric. This frees up heating oil for diesel. (See comments on small nuclear electric facilities).
2.0 Reduce Auto Engine Size (a no brainer)
Reduce all personal auto engine displacements to 2 liters as the norm by law. Tax all larger engines. Provide a $1000 incentive to trade SUV’s for smaller AMERICAN MADE VEHICLES. Phases out gas-guzzlers. This will help new cars sales as well. Suspend EPA rules preventing dieselification (if any). We must meet the energy emergency.
3.0 Dieselification (a known solution- it’s physics- another no brainer)
Promote dieselification for a gain of 20-30 percent in efficiency over gas engine powered vehicles, specially, for commercial applications, such as, postal delivery trucks. The Government should take the lead and set an example. Are those little Post Office trucks ready for diesel? Provide incentives to facilitate this transition. What can we learn from the Europeans?
4.0 Electric lighting Advances
Perhaps powerful LEDs could replace filament, florescent, sodium and other conventional lighting? Researchers need to find the answers. What are the national laboratories doing? This is a solid-state physics problem to solve.
5.0 National Laboratory
Ask the national laboratories for their "top ten" for conservation and alternate fuels. If they have weak answers close them down redeploy the funds to Universities and others that can make contributions. We need bold action now. During the WWII auto production was shifted to defense DONE.
Bring other fuels and energy sources online
6.0 Mobile Natural Gas (a domestic solution)
Migrate to natural gas for mobile fueling in both gaseous and liquid formats. Appoint a Czar to make this happen with, goals, budget and schedule to complete. Add natural gas fueling isles to stations over TBD size. Suspend all rules where they create barriers to production output. How far and how soon can American natural gas go in replacing foreign oil-derived fuels? Boone Pickens may have the answer? Suggested applications: Trains, NY Subway, Buses, Long Haul trucks.
7.0 Synfuels (a domestic solution)
We need a serious effort to develop synfuels from natural gas and coal, such as, derived from the Fischer Tropsch process variants. Set goals for 100’s of thousands of barrels a day. Can new synfuels plants be self-financing with government backing? They create jobs, the money STAYS in the US and the economy is stimulated. What are the barriers to getting this done? What can we learn from South Africa? Maybe synfuels can be used with natural gas diesels. (Natural Gas diesels use a pilot of diesel fuel for ignition). A total US fuels solution
8.0 Nuclear Power for Rail (using small maybe mobile submarine derived nuclear electric generators)
Distributed electric power can be installed along the rail route using small nuclear sub like power generators. Does this make sense? Excess electric production can be pumped back into the grid. Mobile Nuclear power may be helpful in heating rural NE areas freeing up fuel oil for diesel. Wait and see the heating bill this winter! They will be going back to wood using 1890's cast iron wood stoves (they bake bread too).
9.0 Nuclear (long term solutions start now)
Nuclear power is a known major source of electric power. Where is the execution plan to accelerate this implementation? We can’t afford to let accounting and legal precision slow progress. We need an aggressive implementation schedule. Can this task be assigned to government agencies?
10.0 Wind
Keep up the progress
11.0 Smooth Out Max Out Nuclear and Hydro Electric Power
Design for charging electric autos by night utilizing nuclear power (planning ahead). Modulate energy supply by pumping water up to mountain reservoirs by night, storing energy, and flow back, generating electricity by day, maximizing energy output over the 24-hour period. The Swiss use this technique buying nuclear power from France by night and regenerating hydroelectric power by day - a no risk technical approach supporting large electric vehicle usage and high duty cycle nuclear power output.
12.0 Hydropower (find more)
We are not fully utilizing hydropower. Create lakes in the TBD Rockies to enable dropping water thru turbines? Canada has large under utilized stream that could be used. (Build large lakes for hydropower?) At Niagara Falls, enormous quantities of water bypass the turbines producing no energy should it be captured? Canada could help in building large hydro lakes?
13.0 Micro-Hydropower (why waste it?)
Make extensive use of streams over TBD gallons per minute flow and TBD head (head= vertical drop). We saw small micro hydro-turbines in Norway and Alaska generating local power. The system in Norway used a small 1-meter in diameter water pipe, parallel to the stream, supplying water to a micro turbine. The point is they powered the local electric railway using this small stream. There are many underutilized streams of this size in the US and Canada. The task is to find candidate streams and put them to work. Who is working this?
14.0 Geothermal
Places like Hawaii, and Yellow Stone Park have extensive geothermal activity. They are sources of underground heat capable of producing clean electric power. Where are the sites to exploit? What are the barriers to getting this done? Why can’t we utilize heat sources close to the surface (less than 5 miles deep?) to generate electric power? We can spend billions on space exploration and other non-essential activity that have no payback. Is there any geothermal activity at Mt St Helen to exploit? Can we learn anything from Iceland? These alternate energy programs have a payback in clean domestic power, jobs and -reduced transfers of funds overseas.
15.0 Exploration (temporary relief)
We need to ramp up all exploration options (DRILL) now for example in:
Deepwater Oil sand
Off Alaska to California Appalachian basin
An Action Plan is needed with a focus on fuel delivery
The Government should give Universities with engineering departments $10 million each to investigate alternate energy sources and conservation techniques. This will build capabilities and spins off industries. Suggested tasks to investigate include:
· What can we expect to gain from micro-hydroelectric generation? What makes economic sense?
· How much mobile fuel can we produce from domestic natural gas? The Boone Pickens question validated.
· How much conservation can be gained from dieselification? (This is big but how big?)
· What are the alternative replacement fuels for rural areas relying on oil for heat?
(Electric how to get it there, mobile nuclear, LNG?)
· Do small nuclear generators, as on subs or on rail, have a place in the solution?
· Can hydroelectric sourcing lakes be built in rural mountain ranges to provide water for small hydroelectric facilities?
· Can we work with Canada to provide Arctic natural gas sourcing, new hydropower etc?
Weekly Reviews (where are we?)
Lets have weekly “progress reviews” on National Radio or C-Span with all the major parties reporting out, for example: (A Program Management Fireside Chat!!) The National Laboratories reporting on:
· Progress and breakthrough reports
· What are the production figures?
· What was accomplished this period?
· Are we on schedule?
· What are the gaps?
· How and when will the gaps be filled?
· Barriers and mitigation
· Plan for next week.
Clear Objectives
1.0 Reduce dependency on foreign energy sources. Spend here on research for alternate energy.
2.0 Develop comprehensive domestic energy sourcing.
3.0 Set goals of 10 percent reduction per year (small auto engines alone will accomplish this) Incentivize as needed.
4.0 Prevent economic disruptions, keep the economy strong
Finally the enemy is accounting and legal precision impeding progress. Newt Gingrich said it took 22 years to add the 5th runway to the Atlanta airport verse 4 years for the US to build a weapons industry, develop the atom bomb, produce more steel than all of Europe and defeat two great Countries during WWII. We need the ability to act and execute. We must suspend red tape and focus on production
Why must government solve this problem? Because Government has infinite resources to work with, everyone knows it funds pork; and always finds money. NO ONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CAN DO THIS.
The Manhattan project cost just $24 billion (today’s dollars) in the 1940’s. This is chump change. This is just 2 weeks of fueling costs. ONLY TWO WEEKS OF FUEL COST.
Conclusion: It’s chump change to create a massive domestic alternate fuels production program (The New Manhattan Project) and it’s desperately needed. Money spent on this program stays in the US. We are in a serious energy and financial emergency and need to take action. Or we could do nothing and watch the country and military decline.
Sincerely
-
Comment by Steve Guyton on July 23, 2008 at 6:49pm - A similar letter should be sent to every elected official.
-
Comment by John C. Johnson on July 18, 2008 at 4:20pm -
Mr. Campbell, That was an excellent letter you sent. I agree 99% with what you had to say. I hope you send it to many others in the Senate and House in Washington. You have some great ideas there.
John C. Johnson
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network