.

U Weekly. Serving The Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio

Don't Miss

Bring On the Bacon

Uweekly Print

June 25th, 2008 Archives

The energy farce

Oil isn’t the problem. Our government is.

By W.T. Lewis

"The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter." --Winston Churchill
8 Comments + Add Yours

The world is in quite a pickle when it comes to energy, right? That is what the media would have you believe anyway. Oil demand is skyrocketing due to emerging third world economies! We have reached peak oil production! The Middle East isn’t pumping enough crude! Oil ! Oil! Oil! The truth however, is a little less Chicken Little than you might think.

Last year, world-wide oil consumption increased by only 1.1% Yes, you read that correctly. Even in the rapidly growing Asia/Pacific region which includes China, consumption only rose 2.3% last year. In America, our energy conservation efforts are already beginning to pay off. Our oil consumption decreased by 0.1%. Meanwhile, worldwide oil production fell by just 0.2%. If you add biofuel (ethanol, biodiesel, etc) production to the mix, fuel production actually increased slightly. The “sky is falling” argument when explaining oil prices holds no water.

So why are oil prices the highest they have ever been? I have no idea. Neither do the “experts”. If you can blame anyone, start looking toward the commodities market which prices today’s oil based on future speculation. Whatever the reasons for the ridiculous price of oil, it begs the question… why not eliminate the problem altogether?

The world has essentially been using the same primary form of portable fuel for over 100 years. Yet our technology in nearly every other arena has developed to staggering proportions. From fission to microprocessors, humans have overcome incredible obstacles in breaking new scientific ground. Yet, we’re still mostly using smog-inducing internal combustion engines.

Certainly, much of the reason we are still addicted to oil has to do with the marriage of Big Oil with our world governments. The oil industry will squeeze every last penny from the investments they've made to locate, extract, process and ship current energy resources. They will do this until the very painful (for consumers) end when the wells run dry.

Perhaps it’s time for our own government to play the role of hero and extract themselves from the political and economic grip of the oil industry. We need not look to the not-so-distant past for a solution.

The Manhattan Project was responsible for perfecting nuclear fission and the development of the Atomic bomb. Scientists overcame tremendous theoretical and technological hurdles in a few short years. The project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion – about $24 billion in 2008 dollars.

Does it not make sense for our government to create a National Energy Project in the form of what was done at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge? Hire the best scientists in the world, build an "Energy City" somewhere in the US and give them three years to come up with a viable alternative energy source. The cost could easily be absorbed by our massive budget, costing perhaps less than $100 Billion. That’s only about 3% of the current U.S. federal budget.

Once successful, this new technology could be licensed to private companies for production whereupon market forces would take over to help dictate price. The government recoups its investment, the U.S. becomes an energy hegemony, we likely stave off environmental destruction and possibly save mankind in the process. Sounds like a pretty “American” idea to me.

Then again, a project of this magnitude would take guts. The kind of guts and determination America showed in the first half of the 20th Century. Sadly, our political establishment of the past half century has not shown the resolve to make big bets to solve our most pressing problems – Social Security, education, health care and energy. Our politicians are too busy placing band aids on gaping wounds. Upsetting the status quo means risking the support of the big money interests which fuel their re-election campaigns – from oil to insurance companies and unions to senior citizen groups.

The “sky is falling” indeed. But our ruin as a nation and perhaps a people, will not be brought about by the oil companies, the sheiks in the Middle East or the speculators at the oil exchanges. We bring it upon ourselves by not electing leaders who will make the big bets necessary to protect the economic security our nation. What are you going to do about it?

Originally Published: June 25, 2008

↑ Back to the top
 
Comments
  1. A "National Energy Project" is a great idea!

    And even the cost could be supplemented by reducing/eliminating current subsidies for energy (oil and Ethanol come to mind).

    These currently subsidized energy industries would still have a huge incentive to try and lower prices because it will put the fear in them. The fear of a new energy source putting them out of business!

    crabjoe | 2008-06-24 - 08:43:22 PM (CDT)
  2. The Peak Oil energy crisis is a catastrophe that will soon impact us, as revealed in this free 50 page downloadable report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

    Clifford J. Wirth | 2008-06-24 - 12:54:50 AM (CDT)
  3. It would be nice if what you propose were viable. But all the "optimism" in our abilities to magically circumvent the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which fission does not), and somehow "discover" Star Trek Warp technology will not make these wishful, childlike fantasies a reality. Get a grip.

    Craig | 2008-06-25 - 12:50:03 PM (CDT)
  4. You write:

    "Oil isnÂ’t the problem. Our government is." and then proceed to suggest ’government as the solution"???

    get a grip. "One cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking that created them."

    Under supply is not the problem, over consumption is. back in the days of the last spike (1973) the NW - BPA district mothballed two nukes by using the money to weatherize the low income housing stock in Wa, Or, and ID.

    Government needs to get out of the way, and at most, get a few simple rules right. What inhibits renewable fuels is the huge subsidies on technologies that can be monopolized- hydrocarbons, nuclear. Check out the US vs. the German "buyback provisions" to understand why the US industry lags.
    The government supports monopolists-elitists and not the independent businessman.

    You seem to be condoning efforts to maintain monopoly power, albeit shift it to another field. Where is the conservation effort, the one that recognizes that 5% of the population feels privileged/entitled to 25% of the fossilized sunlight?

    erichwwk | 2008-06-25 - 02:25:49 PM (CDT)
  5. You, like so many others before you, have confused technology with energy. Collect all the technology that you want and you will not fill your tank with it.

    I somewhat agree that a National Energy Project is worth doing, but the likelihood of finding an energy source that is as dense, portable, and versatile as petroleum-- AND scalable enough to continue to run our society as we have been is about nil. As James Howard Kunstler is so fond of saying: "You will not continue to run Wal-Mart, Disney World and the Interstate Highway System the way we have been running it on any combination of wind, solar, ethanol, used french fry oil or anything else on the horizon."

    gbenson | 2008-06-25 - 02:54:23 PM (CDT)
  6. My goodness, the author is so freaking clueless I dont know where to begin. "Consumption fell". Uhm yes, due to the fact that there wasnt enough energy to consume.

    Jeppe Larsen | 2008-06-25 - 06:19:28 PM (CDT)
  7. Picked up this little paper in a coffee shop and was surprised to see this article. Decent stuff, but I’ve got two bones to pick:

    1. "Our politicians are too busy placing band aids on gaping wounds."

    This is more the fault of the voting public. People don’t want to hear about what you’re going to do in five or ten years to fix a problem, they want to know what you’re going to do yesterday. Senator McCain is dealing with this right now regarding ANWR and off-shore drilling.

    Big problems take a long time to fix, but voters don’t want to hear that. "Don’t tell me about the labor pains, just show me the baby".

    We too often assume that the voting public is just like us: educated and politically interested. When the truth is that more voters make decisions based solely on political affiliations and cheap talking points. Sad, but true. So we end with politicians who cater to the dumbest amongst us, because they vote, too.

    2. A program as you suggest cannot exist as long as we spend. $340,000,000 PER DAY in Iraq.

    Say what you want about the war - that topic has been long exhausted - but it’s damn expensive if nothing else.

    And not to mention, this is the first time in the history of the country that we cut taxes during a war. The results have been economically disastrous.

    Our budget is a mess as it is, and that’s without adding $100 billion to spending.

    Not a bad idea, but until we leave Iraq, it’s just a pipe dream.

    Jeremie P. | 2008-06-30 - 01:28:54 PM (CDT)
  8. "The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter."

    --Winston Churchill

    Brian | 2008-06-30 - 05:24:13 PM (CDT)
Your Thoughts,
Name: (required)
To protect everyone from terrible spam, please enter the following code: (required)
captcha
* Offensive comments will be deleted!
Our Print Edition Visit the Blogs Party Pix, OSU Sports, and Concerts Our current promotions Our current contest Campus Area drink calendar The One Event not to miss