Developing a rational energy policy is difficult, perhaps impossible, because decisions are based on political influence and money and not science and engineering. In an ideal world, we would be generating our electricity from nuclear and hydro almost exclusively. Solar cells are useful in many applications but pragmatically you need a reliable, 24x7 power source. Dealing with spent nuclear waste is a solvable problem with the correct leadership. Transportation is all about energy density and delivery infrastructure. Oil has great energy density and delivery infrastructure. We should be able to greatly expand the delivery infrastructure for compressed natural gas and greatly increase it's use in transportation. Batteries are expensive and have low energy density, which makes them a tough sell for transportation. Regardless, they do have their place. I will buy an electric golf cart when reasonably priced and long-life batteries are available.
Regarding climate change, it is greatly misunderstood. The climate changes continuously. The real, and perhaps only, question is "What percentage of the change is due to man's activities?" There is essentially no evidence that man's activities are responsible for a "large" proportion of the change. Those who make such claims are citing the results of numerical climate models. While man-made increases in carbon dioxide does increase the "greenhouse effect", the impact is hard to quantify - perhaps it is small, perhaps it is large. Numerical climate models should be considered an area of research and are not ready to be used as a tool for creating public policy. I used to develop numerical forecast models for the Government and a lot of the physics is poorly understood and difficult to correctly model on computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
"The US is surging into global leadership in petroleum products surpassing Saudi Arabia." On the strength of fracking , US petroleum product (oil and liquid gas) has surged over the past decade to 11.5 million barrels a day from 7.3 million according to the International Energy Agency. Additionally US natural gas production has increased 30% leading to a doubling in natural gas fired generation leading to about 27% of total generation replacing coal nearly megawatt for megawatt............fracking is a significant contributor to roughly 7% decline in US carbon dioxide emissions over the last decade."WSJ 10/18/14.
Despite this bright spot in our economy created solely by the private sector the government continues to refuse to consider Keystone and to add insult to injury are now applying what are termed misdirected regulations on rail shipments
Conversely the government both federal and state have extended very generous tax incentives to Elon Musk CEO of Telsa, a vehicle that has a starting price of $71,000. As golf cart owners recognize battery technology still has some very serious short comings.
Questions:
How do you view America's energy policies?
How do you view America's climate change position?
Should the government pick and choose winners and losers or should market forces choose?
|