energy — VOICES for REASON

In today’s Wall Street Journal, I have an op-ed piece entitled “Obama Follows Nixon on Oil Spill.” It explains how Richard Nixon’s anti-oil, anti-development response to the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 helped bring about an energy crisis–and how President Obama’s policies are ominously similar. Read it here.

In general, I have found that studying the history of oil is essential for understanding the present world. For example:

• How did so much of the world’s oil end up in the hands of dictators even though it was discovered by citizens of free countries?
• How is the history of oil connected to the history of terrorism?
• What policies led to the greatest amount of production and innovation, and what caused the least?

I cover these and many more questions in my course “The Triumph and Tragedy of the Oil Industry.” Listen to it online or download in MP3 here.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

In the Wall Street Journal, my colleague Alex Epstein argues that overreaction to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill left the country dangerously vulnerable. The piece begins:

Which former president does Barack Obama most resemble? When it comes to handling oil spills, the answer is Richard Nixon. Like our current president, Nixon too presided over a major offshore oil blowout—the three million gallon Santa Barbara spill of 1969. And, like Mr. Obama, Nixon responded by whipping up anti-oil sentiment and passing a sweeping moratorium on drilling.

This parallel is important to keep in mind, because Nixon’s reaction helped cause the worst energy crisis in American history.

Read the whole thing.

If someone were to propose today that the United States implement a “new,” “exciting” economic idea called “socialism,” in which government central planners effectively owned and controlled the entire economy, we would surely point out that such a system has already been tried and implemented, with disastrous results.

We should do the same with the supposedly “new,” “exciting” economic idea known as the “green energy economy”–in which government central planners mandate that practical energy sources (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear) be replaced by solar panels, windmills, dung piles, and corn fields. (Thomas Friedman’s latest column is a typical endorsement of such policies.)

There is nothing new and exciting about the “green energy economy.” There is a place overseas that has already provided stark evidence of what it means to pursue a “green energy economy,” and it’s not pretty. That place is called Europe, and it’s a testament to what happens when you force unproven, inefficient energy down people’s throat. A recent post at the free-market energy blog Master Resource explains:

Renewable energy has proved an expensive and unreliable source of energy everywhere it has been tried on a significant scale…Italy, Spain and Germany are cutting back on their taxpayer/ratepayer-funded generosity toward politically correct energies….In all, Europeans have tested the theory of a “clean energy revolution” to destruction.

For the gory details, read the whole article here.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

My colleague Alex Epstein has published a new commentary at Forbes.com, “Three Myths About Oil.” Noting that the average American consumes three gallons of oil a day, Alex observes that nevertheless,

… oil’s detractors call it an addiction, downplaying its enormous benefits as fleeting pleasures that will necessarily bring long-term pain and destruction. An oil-based economy will inevitably collapse, they say, because oil is finite and will run out, because foreign oil causes terrorism, because oil, as a fossil fuel, will bring about climate catastrophe. Let’s examine these myths about oil.

Read the whole thing.

Whenever you hear about the miracles of wind power, always keep in mind one thing above all: because the wind blows erratically, and sometimes doesn’t blow at all, wind power is inherently unreliable. As I wrote in a recent piece on “green energy,”

where coal, oil, and natural gas can be burned whenever power is needed, at the exact quantity needed, wind and sunlight can be harnessed only when the weather cooperates–and electricity can’t be stored [in significant quantities] for a rainy day. Thus, they are always used as supplemental, not primary, sources of power on electric grids.

An engineer friend of mine recently witnessed this fact firsthand while driving east of San Francisco. He sent me this still picture that is as good as a movie–because the windmills were not moving. As he wrote: “Good thing Californians have reliable coal and gas-fired power on the grid elsewhere; Gaia did not see fit to bless us with breeze-based power today. Hundreds of them, dead still.”

Anytime you see an electric car you are likely to see a “zero emissions” sticker on it, implying that the driver of the car is driving without emitting CO2. Electric car companies are using this idea to market their cars, and to imply that those of us who drive gasoline-powered cars should feel guilty. For example, Coda Automotive, an electric car company, brags that its not-yet-existent sedan, once it exists, will be “An all-electric car to let you drive your way out from under the thumb of big oil. To help steer us away from climate change, polluted skies…”

It is true that electric motors do not emit CO2, and electric cars don’t have tailpipes that emit CO2 or anything else. But ask yourself (or Coda): Where does the electricity that charges the “zero emissions” car come from? Answer: It almost certainly comes from burning coal or natural gas, by far the leading sources of electricity production in America, because they produce the cheapest, most abundant power. Another question: What happens when you burn coal or natural gas to produce electricity? CO2 is emitted.

To call a car “zero emissions” because it generates CO2 at the power plant instead of the engine is intellectually indefensible–and dishonest. And it is a particularly dangerous form of dishonesty, because it promotes the idea that oil and other fossil fuels are dispensable to our standard of living. They are not.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

In his latest piece, Wall Street Journal business columnist Holman Jenkins argues that today’s electric cars are “welfare wagons”–overpriced, underperforming novelty items that the rest of us will be subsidizing for upwards of $7,500 apiece. Of Nissan’s much-touted Leaf, he writes:

the Leaf is a car for a wealthy hobbyist, good for a trip of 100 miles after which it becomes an inert lump at the end of your driveway (or behind a tow truck) for the many hours it will take to recharge.

Read the whole thing.

For those inclined to believe that today’s electric cars are just going through the growing pains of any new technology, consider what a wise man told Henry Ford over 100 years ago, when electric cars were also considered the wave of the future.

Electric cars must keep near to power stations. The storage battery is too heavy…Your [gasoline] car is self-contained—carries its own power plant—no fire, no boiler, no smoke and no steam. You have the thing. Keep at it.

The wise man’s name? Thomas Edison.

Of course, we can’t and shouldn’t rule out the possibility that some brilliant company will overcome all the obstacles to practical electric cars–but that company must prove itself on the free market, not gorge itself on other people’s money.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Did you notice the irony in President Obama’s eulogy for the 29 coal miners from Massey Energy who died recently in West Virginia? Obama has repeatedly denounced the work of coal miners for emitting CO2 and has said of coal companies that he will “bankrupt them” through “a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.” More broadly, he has shown hostility toward all fossil fuels, speaking of “the tyranny of oil” and proclaiming “the age of oil must end in our time.”

So what could the President say about men who died doing jobs he believes shouldn’t exist? What could he find positive to say? The only thing he could come up with, apparently, was admitting the truth that he denies every other day of the year–that coal miners are producing abundant, affordable, indispensable energy.

From the speech:

Day after day, they would burrow into the coal, the fruits of their labor, what we so often take for granted: the electricity that lights up convention centers like this; that lights up our churches and homes, our schools and offices; the energy that powers our country and the world.

What the President did not admit is that coal (along with other fossil fuels) is indispensable in part because all his favored sources of “green energy,” such as solar panels and windmills,  can produce nowhere near the cheap, reliable electricity we get from coal. What the President did not admit is that he’s part of the chorus demonizing fossil fuels, and that he has called for emissions from fossil fuel use to be cut 80% worldwide by 2050 despite no remotely plausible large-scale replacement.

The most true and most hypocritical line in his whole speech was: “the fruits of their labor, what we so often take for granted.” What do you mean “we,” President Obama? The reason so many people take for granted the benefits of coal is because people like you make them feel guilty for emitting CO2, while completely evading the indispensable positives we get from coal and other fossil fuels. If you really want to do honor to these coal miners, start giving speeches about the value of industrial energy, and about how a combination of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear–technologies that the “green” movement opposes savagely–are the most promising means of providing it.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Last week I spoke at the 13th annual Energy & Environment Conference and Expo in Phoenix. This is one the largest events in the U.S. devoted to energy and environmental issues, with over 650 speakers and more than 2300 attendees.

Marketing slogan: “650 speakers tackle solutions for USA’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions.” Well, make that 649, because the gist of my presentation was to argue against the “solutions” that every other speaker had to offer.

As I told the audience attending my panel session, I was there to make the case for not doing anything about climate change—or, more specifically, for not imposing a massive regime of government controls, regulations, or market interventions aimed at restricting greenhouse gases in the name of allegedly fighting climate change.

Mine was definitely the most controversial talk on my panel session. I was even attacked as a “denier” by one of my co-panelists, the executive director of the American Solar Energy Society. But there were a number of people in the audience who came up afterwards to thank me for presenting a contrarian view that they felt was badly needed at this conference.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I commented on how government central planning, being subject to shifting political agendas, makes long-range economic decision-making impossible. It’s worth looking at other examples of the chaos and market distortions that government intervention causes.

Consider the government’s support for alternative fuel vehicles, which—like the solar power plants in the Mojave desert—is driven purely by green ideology. It currently doesn’t make any technological or economic sense to try to replace the petroleum-powered internal combustion engine with currently existing alternative fuel technologies. (Just as it currently doesn’t make any sense to try to replace fossil-fueled or nuclear-powered electricity with solar or wind.) Nevertheless, the government is determined to do so.

In 2003, the Bush administration launched a 1.5 billion dollar initiative to subsidize the development of hydrogen cars—cars that use hydrogen instead of gasoline as their source of energy, producing water as their only emission.

Now, there are all kinds of reasons why hydrogen cars would never make it today on a free market. Critics cite legitimate safety concerns, the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell technologies, and the need for a huge, nationwide build-out of hydrogen refueling stations. Read the rest of this entry »