|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
A Sensible National Energy Strategy
| Article
# : |
19313 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1991 |
2,196 Words |
| Author
: |
S. Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer, Visiting Eminent Scholar at George Mason
University and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
Program, is a pioneer in unmanned space science. His early
work included study of primary cosmic radiation and the
discovery of the equatorial "elctrojet" current in the Earth's
ionosphere. He also proposed to NASA the manned mission to
Phobos and Deimos now referred to as the Ph-D Project. |
The United States "does not have an energy policy" has been a common complaint since about 1980, when the Reagan administration determined not to involve the government in energy matters better handled by market forces. The prime example, of course, was the deregulation of oil prices, completed in 1981 and followed by a decade of low energy prices and unparalleled prosperity.
Nevertheless, national energy policy has become a catchphrase for those who hanker after the "good old days" of government regulation of energy supply and demand. To some it means energy conservation by command-and-control methods; to others it means subsidies for renewable energy sources, especially solar energy, or the closing down of nuclear plants (or at least stopping any further plants from being built). And others want a national energy policy that makes us independent of oil imports from the Middle East.
Finally, we do have a national energy strategy, announced amid concerns about the conflict in the Persian Gulf and about possible climate changes from the increasing use of fossil fuels. President Bush had requested the formation of such a strategy in July 1989, responding to public pressure for a "comprehensive" and "coherent" set of policies. The proposals emphasize energy conservation and efficiency, as well as policies designed to raise domestic energy production--all of which should result in a substantial decrease in oil imports, or at least a less rapid increase than would otherwise occur (see summary).
Yet the critics are not satisfied. They want more enforced conservation, even though it may not be economic; more energy from nonfossil sources, even though this may require large subsidies and raise the cost to consumers. Other critics deny the value of nuclear energy, which is domestically based and secure, nonpolluting in terms of acid rain and greenhouse gases, and economically competitive--as has been demonstrated in countries like France and Japan, where construction of nuclear reactors has not been impeded.
There are even some critics who yearn for Richard Nixon's Project Independence or Jimmy Carter's misguided synfuels programs--all of which would have greatly raised the cost of energy and created huge pollution problems for the sake of somewhat reduced oil imports. There never was a realistic plan to eliminate imports altogether.
Neglected by all these critics is the fact that uneconomic schemes of conservation and fuel substitution
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
