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 (www.wrightspeed.com ; www.teslamotors.com ). 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.

Sincerely,
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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Reasons We Think America is On the Wrong Course

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday. He does a nice job at talk radio. But he was worked up because the CBS News Poll showed that 72% of Americans surveyed think the U.S. is on the wrong track. (When I went to CBS' site, it looks to me like the number is 69%, but that's an insignicant difference). Medved's view is that income for the poorest citizens are rising (recent government data), unemployment is low, stock market is high, no cold war, so why so pessimistic? Here are my answers: Several of our young men and women are being killed every day in a war that we are getting sick of. The deficit is some unimaginable, staggering number that my generation is imposing on my children. Social Security is bankrupt and both Congress and the Administration (both previous and current, and both Republican and Democratic) are unwilling to face the issue. There are virulent infectious agents in hospitals that are resistent to essentially all antibiotics, and the drug co...

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...

Romney/Thompson dream ticket?

The role of Fred Thompson in yesterday's SC primary is as murky as his next step. Did he divide the religious vote and thereby hand Huckabee a loss? Or would those votes, had he not been there, have gone elsewhere? My instinct is that more of those votes would have gone to Romney or McCain than to Huckabee. Fred comes across to me as the thinking person's conservative: thoughtful on positions, a sense of history, a Federalist, serious about the war on terror and prepared to take the long view on it. His addresses have content, not sound bites - which may, unfortunately, be a drawback in 2008. Mitt is quickly seizing the stage as the most knowledgeable in the field on economics, growth and job creation. With a war still consuming dozens of billions, it isn't clear that the race will be won on voters' views of candidates job creation prowess. However, he gives off as much energy as Fred seems to absorb - Mitt's electron shell could power Fred. So, Mitt may be drawi...