Overcoming Oil Addiction

”America is addicted to oil,” President Bush declared in his State of the Union address. ”The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources--and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

Mr. Bush’s call for a determined national effort toward weaning the nation away from its dependence on petroleum is certainly remarkable, if only for the fact that for four generations his family’s financial fortunes came from oil exploration and extraction. Yet, his words will mean little lest he backs them up with a vigorous and adequately financed energy development program.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the President signed on August 8, provides numerous tax breaks, among them $4.3 billions for nuclear power producers, 2.8 billion for fossil fuel producers, $2.7 billion for renewable electricity producers, $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities, $1.3 billion for energy conservation, and $1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (ethanol, methane, liquified natural gas, and propane). For buyers of a hybrid vehicle, the Act provides a tax credit of up to $3,400.

A Congressional majority rejected the President’s proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR), nor did it increase vehicle efficiency standards or require increased reliance on non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources (as proposed by the Kyoto Protocol).

Among the Act’s critics, The Washington Post decried it as a broad collection of subsidies, particularly for the oil and nuclear industries, many of them operating in Texas. Apparently few energy lobbyists were left behind.

Does the oil and gas industry really need billion-dollar subsidies out of the pockets of taxpayers burdened with all-time high energy prices? That question was resoundingly answered when Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported record earnings of $36.1 billion for 2005 (equal to more than $116 million per day over the fourth quarter).

Harnessing renewable energy sources as replacement for petroleum and natural gas is proving to be technically difficult and expensive. That is true for solar, wind, and ocean power, as well as for hydro, geothermal, and biomass energy.

The President’s 2006 budget proposes $54 million for research into emissions-free coal plants, $65 million for the development of solar power, and a mere $5 for wind energy. $59 million are to be allotted for developing fuels out of agricultural waste, such as wood chips, switch grass and stalks, with the aim of making the resulting "cellulosic ethanol" competitive and practical. These millions of dollars are relative small sums compared to the billion-dollar subsidies oilmen Bush and Cheney like to allot to oil and gas companies.

As a substitute for oil and gas, hydrogen would offer a sustainable, inexhaustible, and emission-free fuel if the “incredible advances” of which the President spoke were to generate the necessary technology. Yet, it appears that presently he is more interested in boosting the expansion of nuclear energy production.

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush did not tell Congress of his plan to reverse the traditional U.S. refusal to allow the reprocessing of spent fuel from civilian reactors. According to the Washington Post, the administration envisions “a multi-decade effort dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.” It would “expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad while taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it.” Instead of separating plutonium from spent fuel that can be used in bombs, the proposed “recycling” process would yield a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle.

That scheme, however, is likely to encounter major obstacles. Do we have the technology for safely transporting nuclear waste by land and sea over thousands of miles and then safely reprocessing and using it? Considering that Americans still quarrel over the least dangerous disposal of their own nuclear waste, the President’s reprocessing plan for both domestic and foreign nuclear waste is bound to meet with a barrage of objections.

Even if we were serious about overcoming our addiction to oil, we are far from having a sure cure for the malady.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	02-05-06
Overcoming Oil Addiction
”America is addicted to oil,” President Bush declared in his State of the Union address. ”The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources--and we are on the threshold of incredible advances." Mr. Bush’s call for a determined national effort toward weaning the nation away from its dependence on petroleum is certainly remarkable, if only for the fact that for four generations his family’s financial fortunes came from oil exploration and extraction. Yet, his words will mean little lest he backs them up with a vigorous and adequately financed energy development program. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the President signed on August 8, provides numerous tax breaks, among them $4.3 billions for nuclear power producers, 2.8 billion for fossil fuel producers, $2.7 billion for renewable electricity producers, $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities, $1.3 billion for energy conservation, and $1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (ethanol, methane, liquified natural gas, and propane). For buyers of a hybrid vehicle, the Act provides a tax credit of up to $3,400. A Congressional majority rejected the President’s proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR), nor did it increase vehicle efficiency standards or require increased reliance on non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources (as proposed by the Kyoto Protocol). Among the Act’s critics, The Washington Post decried it as a broad collection of subsidies, particularly for the oil and nuclear industries, many of them operating in Texas. Apparently few energy lobbyists were left behind. Does the oil and gas industry really need billion-dollar subsidies out of the pockets of taxpayers burdened with all-time high energy prices? That question was resoundingly answered when Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported record earnings of $36.1 billion for 2005 (equal to more than $116 million per day over the fourth quarter). Harnessing renewable energy sources as replacement for petroleum and natural gas is proving to be technically difficult and expensive. That is true for solar, wind, and ocean power, as well as for hydro, geothermal, and biomass energy. The President’s 2006 budget proposes $54 million for research into emissions-free coal plants, $65 million for the development of solar power, and a mere $5 for wind energy. $59 million are to be allotted for developing fuels out of agricultural waste, such as wood chips, switch grass and stalks, with the aim of making the resulting "cellulosic ethanol" competitive and practical. These millions of dollars are relative small sums compared to the billion-dollar subsidies oilmen Bush and Cheney like to allot to oil and gas companies. As a substitute for oil and gas, hydrogen would offer a sustainable, inexhaustible, and emission-free fuel if the “incredible advances” of which the President spoke were to generate the necessary technology. Yet, it appears that presently he is more interested in boosting the expansion of nuclear energy production. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush did not tell Congress of his plan to reverse the traditional U.S. refusal to allow the reprocessing of spent fuel from civilian reactors. According to the Washington Post, the administration envisions “a multi-decade effort dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.” It would “expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad while taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it.” Instead of separating plutonium from spent fuel that can be used in bombs, the proposed “recycling” process would yield a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle. That scheme, however, is likely to encounter major obstacles. Do we have the technology for safely transporting nuclear waste by land and sea over thousands of miles and then safely reprocessing and using it? Considering that Americans still quarrel over the least dangerous disposal of their own nuclear waste, the President’s reprocessing plan for both domestic and foreign nuclear waste is bound to meet with a barrage of objections. Even if we were serious about overcoming our addiction to oil, we are far from having a sure cure for the malady.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

02-05-06

Overcoming Oil Addiction