Whose Energy Future Will Work?

How one approaches energy policy depends on one's political affiliation. Democrats believe in top down, government centric mandates focusing on renewable energy. Republicans believe in free market approaches, but with tax and regulatory incentives.

According to the Department of Energy the United States acquired most of its energy resources from fossil fuels. The breakdown for 2008 is 37.1 percent petroleum, 23.8 percent natural gas, 22.5 percent coal, 7.3 percent renewable energy (wind, solar, etc), and 8.5 percent nuclear. In 2008 the United States imported 3,580,694,000 barrels of oil. The top five international sources of oil for the United States are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

Energy policy in the United States has two goals. The first goal is to decrease the amount of oil being exported from other countries, especially those volatile nations in the Middle East, plus Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The second goal is to diversify sources of energy that rely on fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, that tend to cause pollutants, particularly gasses that are thought to cause man made global warming.

Toward that end, the Obama administration boasts that it has already taken the first step in the so-called stimulus package.

"$11 billion for a bigger, better, and smarter grid that will move renewable energy from the rural places it is produced to the cities where it is mostly used, as well as for 40 million smart meters to be deployed in American homes.

"$5 billion for low-income home weatherization projects.

"$4.5 billion to green federal buildings and cut our energy bill, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.

"$6.3 billion for state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts.

"$600 million in green job training programs - $100 million to expand line worker training programs and $500 million for green workforce training.

"$2 billion in competitive grants to develop the next generation of batteries to store energy."

The above line items and various other Obama administration initiatives, such as "Cap and Trade" (which opponents call "Cap and Tax") have a heavy emphasis on government mandates. Cars and appliances will be made more energy efficient by government fiat. Carbon emissions will be lowered by government order. There seems to be little regard for the idea of energy as a commodity for which there is a market.

The Republican Party energy plan has some mandates as well, but with a little more eye to the market. A hundred new nuclear power plants will be built, likely by streamlining the approval process. A "Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund" will be set up, funded by opening up Arctic Coastal Plain and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas leasing. Oil shale extraction and clean coal technology would be allowed. There will be tax incentives for alternative energy and energy efficient automobiles and appliances.

Besides the set of options that include fossil fuels on the one hand and renewable energy, including wind and solar, on the other, there are a number of more exotic energy technologies in the works. Space based solar power would involve setting up large solar collectors in space, beaming the power via microwaves to receivers on Earth. The dream of fusion power remains promising, including reactors powered by Helium 3, an isotope found on the lunar surface, and the Bussard Polywell fusion reactor.

One of the main problems with Obama administration energy policy is in the sources of energy production that are being curtailed. The right to drill for oil in both onshore and offshore leases is being denied. Cap and Trade legislation would tend to further restrict energy production from sources said to emit carbon dioxide, such as coal. There is no discernible consideration for streamlining the approval process for building nuclear power plants. There seems to be a total reliance on officially approved "renewable energy" technology that is often immature and unproven. The top down government centric approach favored by the Obama administration is likely to lead to unexpected economic disruptions as carbon based energy is curtailed while more politically acceptable "renewable" energy is unready to fill in the gap.

The Republican approach, for a variety of reasons, seems to be much more sensible. The GOP approach relies, on the short term, on finding new domestic sources of energy that people actually use, oil, coal, and natural gas, while at the same time putting money in research and development for more exotic forms of energy production. The GOP approach relies more on incentives rather than mandates and by and larger does not try to pick winners and losers. The approach promises a smoother, albeit longer transition from carbon based fuels to renewable energy, as the market calls for such.

The one thing that could improve on the more market centric GOP energy policy would be to include more research and development funding for exotic but promising energy technologies such as space based solar power and various forms of fusion energy. That would also have the side benefit of providing a rationale for space exploration programs started by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration.

Sources: Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2008, US Department of Energy, 2009

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries, Energy Information Administration, September, 2009

Energy and the Environment, the White House

Energy, GOP Solutions for America, GOP.GOV

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, National Space Society, October 10th, 2007

Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel, John Lasker, Wired, December 15th, 2006

Fusion Energy, M. Simon, The American Thinker, June 12th, 2009