Bush's new energy policy

Bush spoke yesterday at a small business conference and outlined his bold national energy policy. I’m amazed at just how worthless this thing is. I didn’t expect that the administration would take any of the most damaging problems with American energy policy seriously (i.e., carbon dioxide emissions, particulate damage, petroleum dependence, etc.), but some of these initiatives are plain hopeless.

Here’s a basic outline of what Bush wants to do:

(1) build us some more nookyaler power plants and, in order to facilitate their construction, get rid of some of those pesky regulations we have on nuke plants;

(2) get drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska;

(3) build more liquefied natural gas terminals;

(4) put money into “clean” coal research;

(5) also put $500 million into hydrogen research over the next five years (almost a 50% cut from the $1.2 billion we put into hydrogen research over the previous five years);

(6) $1.9 billion over ten years for wind-power;

President Bush also mentioned a few other programs in passing but with much less specificity such as a biodiesel requirement for certain fuels and a sulfur removal program.

So here’s my beef. First of all, nuclear power. Bush laments that there hasn’t been an order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s and calls it clean, safe energy. He thinks we should loosen nuclear regulations to make it more feasible to build a plant. There are so many problems with this, I don’t even know where to begin. Nuclear power is not safe. Those two words should not even be used in the same sentence. Anyone remember Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fermi? No one has ordered a reactor not simply because there’s too much red tape; on the contrary, they’re too much of a liability. In the 1950s, the federal government attempted to lessen this liability through passage of the Price-Anderson Act, which placed a cap on reactor owners’ liability provided they had the maximum amount of insurance possible (roughly $200 million). If a nuclear accident were to occur, the federal government would be on the hook for roughly $10 billion. Without Price-Anderson (which I believe has been extended by Congress until roughly 2017), the nuke industry would go belly-up—no one in their right mind would insure a nuclear power plant.

Now, I assume this isn’t the nasty regulation that Bush wants to get rid of. Regardless, more nuclear power plants means a greater risk of nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear power advocates know that and won’t build unless someone’s there to cover the cost of a potential accident. Guess who that is.

ANWR is useless as a solution to oil dependence. Bush knows it, I know it, everyone knows it. Oil drilled anywhere other than the Mideast—be it in Alaska, Texas, or Afghanistan—is going to cost more than Middle Eastern oil. Even if that weren’t an issue, there’s simply not enough there to make any difference in either prices or dependence. So why go tear up a pristine habitat if it’s not even going to do any good?

Natural gas is obviously preferable to some of our other energy sources, but it’s still a fossil fuel. We have plenty of natural gas here in the U.S. Liquifying natural gas makes it much easier to import, a problem we don’t have right now.

Clean coal. I love this. It’s an oxymoron. Granted, it is possible to take some of the particulates and toxins out of coal such as mercury, nitrogen, and sulfur, there is no way to prevent the creation of carbon dioxide, the primary culprit in the greenhouse effect. Promotion of coal as an energy source for the future is entirely irresponsible.

As for Bush’s initiatives on renewables, they are a step in the right direction but by no means anywhere near what’s necessary. Bush notes in his own speech that he’s giving far less money to his hydrogen fuel program than he has in the past and allocates paltry amounts to other technologies spread out over five or ten years. Quite frankly, Europe and Japan are sticking it too us in renewable energy R&D. Ironically, their lack of resources has made them prepare for the future whereas our abundance has left us vulnerable. When we wonder why we’re behind in these markets twenty years from now, we can blame our current inertia.

Hopefully our next President will have the foresight to cut back on fossil fuel subsidies, phase out Price-Anderson, and throw some serious dough towards renewable energy technologies. Our current one has no interest in finally taking us in the right direction.