Several times recently, we've heard this argument: When it comes to securing America's energy future, we need "all of the above" -- coal, oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and so on.
That is a not an energy policy; it's a cop-out. It's how elected officials dodge hard choices about our energy security. It's how they avoid political backlash from energy interests, especially those with money and clout such as coal, oil and nuclear.
"All of the above" is how elected officials minimize their personal political risk by shifting it onto the shoulders of the American people, who have to live with the consequences.
With the memory still fresh from the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, with new oil slicks appearing in the Gulf from another spill this month, and with Japan's nuclear disaster leaking radioactivity into the ocean and atmosphere, you'd think policy makers would be reconsidering "all of the above".
But President Obama is sticking to his position that nuclear energy is a necessary part of America's energy future and deserves heavy federal subsidies. Pointing to the BP disaster, the President told a CBS affiliate "all energy sources have their downside".
In an interview with the conservative blog Red County, House Speaker John Boehner described the GOP's "American Energy Initiative" this way:
It's our all-of-the-above energy policy. Let's have more oil and gas exploration, let's use most of the royalties to help develop alternative sources of energy, but it's clean coal technology, it's nuclear energy.
The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. "Doc" Hastings (R-WA), told Fox News:
I'm in favor of all of the above. I'm in favor of nuclear and hydro and wind and solar, but at the end of the day, we need to recognize the resources that we have and we need to pursue that.
Last week as the new oil spill was discovered off Louisiana's coast, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his department had approved another permit for deepwater oil and gas drilling and opened another 7,400 acres in Wyoming to coal mining. As he put it:
There's no place in the country that captures this all-of-the-above approach quite like Wyoming...We need to recognize that coal is a very abundant resource in the United States. Coal will be part of the energy portfolio in American for the future.
In London, the Guardian published an op-ed by author George Monbiot (The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order) who argued, like President Obama, that all energy involves risks. "Energy is like medicine," Monbiot wrote. "If there are no side effects, the chances are that it doesn't work."
Even analysts at the Heritage Foundation object to the wisdom of this "everybody wins" approach. As Nicolas Loris of the Foundation wrote in a post late last year:
(The) "all of the above" energy approach...guarantees handouts and subsidies for all energy sources to make everyone happy. In other words, all the special interests win and the consumer loses.
There are variations to "all of the above". One is, "There is no silver bullet" to solve our energy problems. Another is, "Everything should be on the table". Let's review these cop-out conclusions:
First, while it's true there is no silver bullet to meet our energy needs, there definitely are a number of duds. If we really want energy security, economic stability and some protection against climate change, then we need to take the duds off the table as rapidly as possible.
Second, let's face it: In a rational national energy policy there will be winners and losers. The winners will be those energy technologies that allow us to thrive in a carbon-constrained, post-peak-oil economy. The losers will be the carbon-intensive fuels and energy resources whose risks in this new world outweigh their benefits.
Third, it is an insult to our intelligence to put resources such as solar and wind energy in the same risk category as coal, oil and nuclear power. The downsides of renewable technologies - for example, intermittency and the tradeoffs between solar farms and wildlife habitat -- are far less consequential and easier to avoid than the risks of oil, coal and nukes.
What risks? Those who are regular readers of this blog are well aware of them, so I won't elaborate. I'll just use some key words:
Nuclear power: radioactive contamination, nuclear weapons proliferation, tempting terrorist targets, finite uranium supplies, big water consumption, endless cradle-to-grave taxpayer subsidies (aka corporate welfare and socialized energy production), high construction costs, long construction periods, high investment risks, long-lasting radioactive wastes, no permanent storage. (The Associated Press reports the United States -- which uses more nuclear power than any other nation -- now has nearly 72,000 tons of nuclear wastes spread across 31 states with no permanent place to store them. Temporary storage facilities are at full capacity.)
Oil: In addition to peak oil, wars, military bases in Islamic countries, world demand exceeding production, more wars, environmental accidents, carbon emissions, extortion by unfriendly suppliers, more money for terrorists, supply disruptions, price spikes, yet more wars, repeated economic recessions and billions in taxpayer subsidies the industry doesn't need.
Coal: Mountain top removal, ruined rivers, mercury pollution, childhood asthma, trapped minors, black lung disease, safety violations, unpaid fines, avalanches of coal ash, slurry ponds, water contamination, unsustainable carbon emissions, billions in taxpayer subsidies to chase "clean coal".
Liquids from coal, and oil from shale and tar sands: Water competition with farms and cities, low net energy benefits, high prices, lots more carbon emissions. Oh, and more government subsidies.
Natural Gas: Secret fracking agents, groundwater contamination, unacceptable waste water, volatile prices. Better than coal or nuclear and a good transition fuel IF the industry solves these problems.
One reason these fuels remain on the table is that we don't fully consider their risks. The traditional energy industries are nimble in hopping aboard any available bandwagon to hitch a ride to the future. Nuclear power is relatively carbon free; don't worry about the highly toxic wastes. Liquids from coal, tar sands and oil from shale will reduce oil imports; don't worry about the carbon emissions or water consumption. If oil is a liability, we'll drill more at home. Never mind that easy supplies are gone and more domestic production will have little impact on oil prices.
Here's what we should be doing:
First, we should publicly assess the full life-cycle benefits and risks of each significant energy option -- fossil, nuclear and renewable.
Second, we should create a performance standard for federal energy subsidies, defining limits on each resource's net impacts on water, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, public health and national security and job creation. No energy technology or resource should be supported by the federal government if it fails to meet the performance standard and can be replaced by less-damaging options.
Third, we need a comprehensive national energy policy that guides us to a clean, stable and prosperous future. That means on-ramps for truly clean energy and off-ramps for the rest. As others and I have written before, presidents have been required by law since 1977 to develop comprehensive national energy policy plans and submit them to Congress every two years. The last to comply was President Bill Clinton in 1998. It's President Obama's turn.
Whether or not politicians and policy-makers like it, they need to make choices. Some will be hard. As I said, there will be winners and losers, as there are in every major economic transition. But there will be far fewer losers if King Coal and Big Oil know their time has passed and begin investing in -- and training their workers for -- a clean energy economy.
As for the rest of us? After Salazar's announcement of new coal leases in Wyoming, a news story quoted one observer saying, "The president knows his electoral future hangs on coal." It's up to us to let national leaders know their electoral futures actually hang on making hard but necessary energy choices. Why? Because our future depends not on "all of the above", but on leaving the riskiest and most harmful fuels behind.
Follow William S. Becker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sustainabill
Take China as an example 2009 they burnt over 45% of all the coal burnt on the planet. They were able to capture, somehow, using expensive coal energy over 55% of all the energy intensive solar cells made in the world! But they see that in a generation at present consumption rates they will run out of coal. So where do the Chinese turn for energy? Nuclear, they currently have 13 operational nuclear power plants and generate 6.6 gigawatts of electricity but they are building 27 more with approved plans for 50 more! They plan to go from 6.6 to 40 gigawatts by 2015 and then add 100 more nuclear power plants to get to 86 gigawatts of electricity by 2020!
With this added electricity capacity they can make maybe 80-90% of the solar cells and as large a percentage of large wind mills for us in America!
This way we can close down all our nuclear power plants and coal power plants and use solar and wind energy to supply the electricity for our farms and ranger stations for our forest. We'll need to pay for these items somehow and since energy cost will be to high here we can go back to the vision John C.Calhoun had for this nation a land of plantation owners and farmers!
Daniel Webster where are you when we need you?
Big Solar is consumptive, GHG emitting, destructive, unsustainable and much closer to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Gas than it is to the greenwashed "clean energy" certain people pretend it to be. Local solar is clean, affordable, reliable and THE BENEFITS FLOW TO THE PEOPLE! This is a huge difference! You cannot simultaneously lament the power that Big Energy has over our prices, ecosystems and our politicians while insisting on re-entrenching them as the centerpiece of our energy future - not when there is a MUCH better option.
So, as long as we are looking for an energy revolution, let's go ahead and DO IT RIGHT instead of perpetuating the same destructive, monopolistic GHG intensive Big Energy mercenary model. We can have more jobs, improved property values, improved air and atmospheric quality, MUCH more money left IN communities (imagine that $100/month that is currently pulled out of every household being left there - the entire economy would immediately shift in favor of the middle class), and NO dead wilderness, wasted water, wasted money or SF6 spewing (eminent domain intensive) wasteful transmission!
In fact, it's people talking about the need for "alternatives" that allows dirty energy to continue without worrying about efforts to clean it up. It doesn't do anything about cancer and its causes to just curse the whole mess and insist on a new hat.
The USA could return to using out-houses instead of indoor plumbing, and then we have cleaner water in our rivers and lakes.
How do you want for US citizens to live?
1) Use government subsidies to place solar panels on every roof in America and/or wind generators. Would have the benefits of decreasing use of coal (our main source of methyl-mercury pollution and carbon emissions) and natural gas;
2) Embark on programs to insulate houses, which can cut down on heating/cooling bills by 1/3 to 1/2 (personal experience), thereby further cutting down our use of coal and natural gas;
3) Streetcars and interurban rail (as was in place before National City Lines deliberately ran those systems into the ground (http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm) for commutes, with the benefits of less congestion, air pollution, and oil/gas use. Use high efficiency hybrids (think 100 mpg) for other trips;
4) Fewer cars on the road (due to the passenger rail) would mean lower collective car repair bills and would make the roads safer for using bicycles for short (
Wind Power no that wont happen either, if you think otherwise google Cape WInd.
Solar is nice I have it on my home get my Hot Water for free, but it is limited.
Nat. Gas is good lots of in america, so that is a place we can increase.
But until we get real about this we will be burning coal at a higher rate then we do now, the good news is we have about 500 years worth of coal in america.
The MAIN reasons our domestic energy sources for the forseeable future rest in nuclear power, coal, oil and gas, are AFFORDABILITY!! And WEANING ENERGY DEPENDENCE FROM FOREIGN SOURCES!!
There's NO REASON they cannot be developed, with environmental safeguards, away from the religious zealotry of environmental extremists and their Democratic Party representatives!
Let the energy companies develop so-called "clean" energy sources, which may prove feasible after another two generations. Any "progressives" aware of hybrid cars? Well, energy can be supplied along the same concept, as "clean" energy becomes feasible.
But cramming "clean" energy down our throats by government edict, as the zealots and many Democrats wish, is economic suicide and misery for the country...except for the John Kerry's and Al Gore's, who can move to any one of their many houses, or live the fat expat life overseas along with all the other dictator wannabees.
"Clean" energy is not simply an R&D program, money thrown down a rathole; its adjunct is inhibiting the development of affordable energy from our domestic resources available today, oil, gas, coal and nuclear power.
Nice try.
The cost of electrical energy that is generated in the USA in compliance with US EPA regulations is about ten times the cost for the same amounty (kilowatt hours) of electrical energy in most Asian countries, and this makes the USA even less competetive in the Market place that is competing for locating new manufacturing jobs that need econmical electricity into the USA, and/or keeping existing US jobs in the USA.
The EPA is the main cause of the high electrical costs in the USA.
Yo Gerald, what would you rather have - clean air, clean water or higher electrical costs?
And the large energy companies with their government subsidies to continue using coal, oil and nuclear, while alternative energy sources get little in the way of government support.
Sorry, simple-minded answers like the "EPA is the main cause" does nothing to further the discussion and keeps us from getting to real solutions.
Conveniently forgot Enron's role in our on-going energy crisis, don't care if Sempra Energy hires prostitutes to get legislators to vote their way or not concerned at the outrageous salaries of executives at other energy companies?
You must be a helluva party guest with your easy to swallow one line answers to any issue.
50% of "us" don't even bother to vote and many of "us" think taxes, jury duty, and other responsibilities of a citizen of a democracy are too burdensome also. I'm not sure that relying on "us", a very impatient and short-term group at best, is a very good plan for a long-term strategy.
i totally agree that focusing on renewables is the best option, but it seems to me that what we need is some visionary business leaders to pioneer the companies and technologies to make them competitive and practical. unfortunately, most of our business "leaders" can't see past the next quarter's stock price.
i think many americans understand the need for renewable, alternative energy, but we seem to be very lacking in political and business leaders with the patience and vision to make it a reality. how do we solve THAT?
We must first change our educational system to try to regain the World Technology leader that the USA was until maybe the early 1970's by returning to educational systems that emphasized technology.
Asian countries are now are the technology leaders.
The best & brightest students in the USA have pursued the more financially rewarding non-scientific careers, instead of educations that might have created technically innovative products that people in foreign countries might purchase, or develop new energy sources and systems.
We progressed so much for so many centuries, through the age of agriculture, the industrial revolution, modern science, astrology, the technological revolution... but when it came to energy we just sort of stopped with oil. We need to free up the gears of human ingenuity and start moving past these dangerous and destructive energies on a new age... a cleaner age.