Skip to main content

energy independence

A friend of mine and I were talking about oil prices and the effects that imposed on the economy. I mentioned that I had sent letters to Senators and Congressmen beseeching them to streamline the process for commissioning nuclear plants. "Why nuclear" she inquired, "why not solar and wind?". Simple answer: the solar companies are doing fine on their own with new developments (thin film solar panels, etc.) making them more competitive, and the wind power folks are moving along and harder to stop (property laws give landowners - particularly in rural areas - a little more freedom of action). Nuclear, on the other hand, has been plagued by litigation from wide ranging groups including adjacent property owners, environmentalists, anti-growth groups, etc. Energy companies are now loath to even undertake development activities, given that they can expect 15 years or more of approval process and millions of dollars in legal fees. If we want to have power and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, this is going to have to change, and the energy companies are going to need enabling legislation.

Here is the letter I sent: I urge you to write your Senators and Representatives as well.

Senators Casey and Spector:
Since the oil embargo of 1973 there have been ongoing talks of America becoming energy independent. Indeed President Nixon announced Project Energy Independence in November 1973, setting a goal of energy independence by 1980. With much fanfare, President Carter, with the assistance of Congress, created the Department of Energy in 1977.

Thirty-one years, and untold billions later, we are further, not closer, from energy independence.

Over the next twelve months, Americans will transfer approximately $500-600 billion to other countries, many of which sponsor terrorism. This represents both a severe tax on Americans and a wealth transfer unprecedented in history. (If a mere 2% of this is devoted to terrorism, our enemies have $10 billion to acquire men and materiel). As oil moves inexorably to $150 per barrel ($5.00 per gallon) we, actually YOU, must act.

Wind power is an increasingly real alternative, but only for areas with steady breezes, and technologies for solar power are getting more efficient and cost-competitive, but best for Southern California, New Mexico and Arizona. Our creative capitalists in Silicon Valley are making very interesting electric cars ( ; ). But, those cars are going to need electricity.

You must enable nuclear power plants to be built, and built quickly. That means that environmental laws must be modified and the NRC directed to approve designs quickly. Quickly must be weeks and months, not even one year. Laws must change to completely prevent legally savvy groups from tying up power plant development for years with legal maneuvers. Congress has acted responsibly in recent years in curbing litigation: against general aviation aircraft with great success - a boom in manufacturing of private planes, and with securities, saving employers millions in defense costs from frivolous lawsuits. Congress must now do the same with nuclear power plants.
Since locations will be the most controversial part of this, use military bases. That is, don’t decommission idle military bases, turn them into nuclear facilities.

France and China are meeting their power needs safely and cost-effectively with nuclear power. Thirty years after Nixon’s pronouncement is long enough; please don’t lose a future generation, while America transfers the accumulated wealth of the current generation to the Middle East.

Gene Morphis.

My long time friend Richard Fisher, has done the same in TN. His letter to Senator Alexander, emphasizes freeing markets and investors from interference and bureaucracy to invent and develop new solutions. He has strong views that the values of our leaders have been compromised and no longer represent a strong and growing America.

We would both ask that you act and write your representatives. Ask them to stop grandstanding (e.g. the recent Waxman hearings with oil executives) and actually do something to create domestic energy supplies.


Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…