President Barack Obama wants to develop a process for burning coal without releasing carbon into the atmosphere. He calls this “clean coal.” He says that a nation that put a man on the moon, surely should be able to develop clean coal.

It’s interesting to me that he makes that comparison. Putting a man on the moon was a very expensive government boondoggle. The moon program was conceived primarily as a response to the Soviets having beaten us into space with the first orbiting satellite, Sputnik. After about ten years and billions of dollars, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon on 20 July 1969. The last astronauts to walk on the moon did so in 1972. They left a plaque with this message: “Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon, December 1972.” In over 36 years we haven’t been back.

In other words, there was no real point in putting a man on the moon; we just wanted to show that we could do it. 

Actually, I suspect that Obama’s comparison is more apt than he would like to admit. I have no doubt that given enough money and time we can develop a clean coal burning process. But once we’ve done it we will probably realize that it is too expensive to use for any practical purpose.

I recently became involved in a discussion on another blog about the negative effects of the use of oil as an energy source. A reader left this comment:

In my eyes oil is a cancer that has only grown larger and larger over the years. If we do not do something soon to treat the cancer, then it will devour us completely.

I suggested that our need for oil is more like an addiction to drugs, alcohol or tobacco than a cancer. Not many people feel that they need or want a cancer. It is common for people to consume narcotics until it kills them. And it is reasonable to assume that we might eventually work ourselves into a serious dilemma from our addiction to oil.

But after further thought I considered the possibility that the reader was thinking in terms of the much discussed undesirable environmental effects from the use of oil. That we humans and our machines are simply the host for the oil-cancer much like our body cells serve as hosts for cancer, and that the aim of the oil-cancer is to destroy the environment and us with it.

The problem here though is that it doesn’t matter as much what the source of energy is, but how much of it we use — or more accurately, the amount of motion or activity in the world. That is, the only real way to reduce the net impact of energy use on the environment is to slow the world down. I’m not advocating that we do that; I’m just saying that it may be the only way to reduce the negative effects of activity.

In physics there is a law called the conservation of energy. It states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. And that the sum of all the energies in a system is a constant. What this means is that the “consumption” of energy just converts the energy into a different form; it doesn’t use up the energy. But, in a real-world system a lot of the “consumed” energy is wasted in the form of friction, heat and emissions. That is, it is not captured but it is still out there.

I’m not a physicist but I think this law can be applied to the debate about clean versus dirty energy sources. I suspect that the net impact on the environment is about the same for a given unit of work done no matter the source of the energy.

Take nuclear powered versus coal powered electricity generation. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining coal and transporting it to the power plant. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining, shipping and enriching uranium. Emissions from coal-fired power plants affect the environment. Handling and storage of radioactive waste from nuclear-powered plants affects the environment. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take wood versus oil as a direct heat source. The production of wood hugely benefits the environment, but the harvesting and transportation of the wood produces negative effects. The production and transportation of heating oil produces negative effects. Both produce undesirable emissions when they are consumed. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take solar panels as a source of electricity. The impact on the environment appears to be about zero, until you account for the manufacture and transportation of the panels. Think about the magnitude of an operation to keep all the homes and businesses in the world supplied with enough solar panels to supply their total power needs. And what about the batteries and their disposal issues?

I think we had better just accept oil as one of our major sources of energy for at least the next couple of decades while we figure out a way to harness all the friction, heat and emissions from current and future sources of energy. But then we’ll probably learn that the harnessing has its own costs and negative effects.

Update: New wood powered electricity generating plants are being proposed in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Wood is the leading renewable energy source in the US.

I can’t turn on the television these days without hearing some politician advocating the achievement of energy independence. Not a single time have I heard one pushing for banana independence. Yet we import all our bananas from foreign countries and some of them don’t like us all that much.

The only half-way valid argument for energy independence is national security. If our foreign sources of oil were cut off we could be practically dead in the water after our strategic petroleum reserves are exhausted. For that reason we should be preparing all our known oil fields for production and exploring for more. We should also be developing alternative sources of energy.

But there is no reason to stop importing foreign oil as long as its price is competitive with domestically produced oil. It makes sense to me to keep using the foreign oil as long as we can get it and afford it, and save ours for later. That is, use theirs and hoard ours. If foreign oil becomes unaffordable and threatens our economy we could increase domestic production to hold the price down.

The politicians also rant about the hundreds of billions of dollars we are sending to the Middle East each year to satisfy our “addiction” to oil. They speak as if the money is being poured down a rat hole. Actually, if the foreign recipients of our dollars are pouring them down a rat hole or storing them in a vault, the oil we get from them is effectively free. We could just print more money to replace what they are holding.

But that’s not how it works. We engage in a voluntary transaction with the foreigners in which we get oil and they get US dollars. The only place on the planet where US dollars can be redeemed is in the US. The dollars that they accept in exchange for their oil are effectively promises that they can come to the US later and exchange them for goods, services or property. They may choose to trade the dollars to some other country but that country still has to spend the dollars in the US. So, in the end, all that money sent abroad has to eventually come back and when it does it creates commerce (and jobs) here. This is true of all other forms of foreign trade as well.

This process still might work to our disadvantage if we pay too much per barrel of oil. We were recently paying about $140 per barrel. A Saudi could (but probably wouldn’t) stay overnight in a decent hotel in the US for that amount. We get about 20 gallons of gasoline and numerous side products from the barrel of oil. Is that a good trade? I don’t know but a free market will.

Energy independence sounds good but let’s not go there as long as foreign oil is comparable in price to domestic oil and we are ready to tap into our known deposits in case of a national emergency.

In an article on drilling activity off Florida’s Northwestern shore the AP quotes our bonehead senator:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who has led opposition to offshore drilling among the state’s Congressional delegation, criticized the governor for reversing his position, accusing Crist and McCain of putting oil company profits before protecting the state’s $65 billion annual tourism industry.

“Oil companies and their allies are using the shockingly high price of oil and gasoline, which largely is the result not of a supply problem but speculative fever, to scare the public into thinking coastal drilling offers a real solution to our dependency on oil,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

Where do I start?

How does Nelson know that Crist and McCain are putting oil company profits before protecting the state’s tourism industry? I would guess that they might be thinking of taking some action to mitigate this energy crunch somewhere down the road, instead of bowing to the environment prophets several times a day.

I suppose it hasn’t occurred to Nelson that tourists need lots of fuel to get to Florida’s attractions. Higher and higher priced fuel will kill the tourism industry a lot quicker than a few oil spills. Anyway, when did the government become responsible for protecting the tourism industry?

So, Senator Bill thinks there is no oil supply problem and that the “shockingly” high prices are due to speculation. It would be great if he’s right. That would mean that the market will collapse soon and prices will fall dramatically. How does he think speculators can sustain control of a gargantuan market in which supply exceeds demand? They might be able to do it for a short time but the wealthiest people on this planet would eventually have an overwhelming cash flow problem, including the oil producing monarchies and dictatorships. After hearing talk in the US about opening up oil exploration the Saudis reversed themselves and agreed to increase production; the slightest hint of less demand for their oil spurred them into action.

The power and influence of speculators is way oversold. Look at what just happened in the housing industry. Yes, they helped drive up the price of homes, but they couldn’t sustain it. Eventually the market collapsed and they lost their shirts. Look at what happened in the high-technology industry in the late 90s. Speculators went crazy investing in start-up companies but the market couldn’t accommodate their fervor, so many of them went bankrupt. Listening to the leftist media you would think that all speculators are guaranteed wealth. Not so. Even the successful ones lose money almost as often as they make money.

Coastal drilling may not offer “a real solution to our dependency on oil” and it may not offer a complete solution, but I think it would really help a lot while we look for that real solution. What doesn’t help is for one of our supposed leaders to keep spewing politically convenient crap when others are trying to seriously debate the viability of proposed solutions.

Barack Hussein Obama’s solution to the high fuel cost problem is to raise the cost of fuel. He wants to impose a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies, which will of course be passed on to fuel users. After noticing that the oil companies are still making a nice profit, Barack will probably push to raise his windfall profits tax and so on. Apparently the man hates profits. Never mind that his largest constituent base’s retirement funds depend heavily on corporate profits.

And there’s this other little fact that Barack ignores. The government profits a lot more than the oil companies from each gallon of fuel sold. Some estimates show the government profiting three times as much. Do you think Barack will levy a windfall profits tax on the government?

Since I was a teenager the percent increase in the cost of a Coca-Cola is as much or more than a gallon of fuel. And it has been reported that Coca-Cola’s profit rate last year was greater than the oil companies’ profit rates (where profit rate is roughly defined as the amount of profit divided by the amount of money invested in making that profit.) But we don’t hear any calls from Barack for a windfall profits tax on Coca-Cola.

Some people point out that the concern is about the “obscene” amount of the oil company profits, not the profit rate. Well, that’s like complaining to a bank that your neighbor is making more off his savings than you although both of you are getting the same interest rate, while ignoring the fact that your neighbor has ten times as much money in his account as you have in yours.

It is also argued that the focus is on the oil companies because their products are essential to our everyday lives and products like Coca-Cola are not. Well genius, that is why the oil companies’ gross revenues and profits are huge compared to companies like Coca-Cola. In times of shortages it is easier to do without Coke than fuel.

It is also worth noting that liberal Democrats will argue at the same time that oil is essential to our everyday lives and that we should implement extreme measures to limit its supply.

About a month ago I e-mailed this message to info@gop.com:

I received an e-mail from you asking me to donate to John McCain’s campaign. My position is very simple. Get McCain to change his mind and commit to extracting oil from ANWR and the lower Gulf of Mexico and I will make a very generous donation to his campaign.

This week he stated that he favors letting the states decide if they want to allow oil exploration and extraction off their shores and that he would reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR. That’s not quite what I asked for but it’s close enough. I’m not under any pretense that my message alone caused McCain to change his mind but I feel that I should hold up my end of the bargain.

Here’s my next challenge for McCain. Make this announcement in a major speech and I will make a second contribution of double the amount of the first one: 

As President you will oppose the revival of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill and that you will veto it if it is passed by Congress. You have reconsidered the pros and cons of the bill and you now feel that the cons outweigh the pros. Chief among the cons is the devastating economic effect on the poor working class.

I have e-mailed the text of this post to the GOP.

On a related note, I heard Barack Obama criticizing McCain’s revised stance on oil drilling. He said that drilling offshore and in ANWR won’t lower fuel prices today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Well Barack, what about in six years or ten years? Even at my age I think I might need some fuel ten years from now and would like to think I’ll be able to afford it on my fixed retirement income. I thought leadership was about where we’re going, not where we are.

According to Walter Williams, the state nannies in California are preparing to control your thermostats for you:

The California Energy Commission has recently proposed amendments to its standards for energy efficiency. These standards include a requirement that any new or modified heating or air conditioning system must include a programmable communicating thermostat (PCT) whose settings can be remotely controlled by government authorities. A thermostat czar, sitting in Sacramento, would be empowered to remotely reduce the heating or cooling of your house during what he deems as an “emergency event.”

Building more nuclear power plants would negate the need for such an intrusive measure. But that’s not what governments want. They want greater need for their meddling.

The Associated Press reported last week that “Democrats celebrated a step toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil as the Senate approved a bill calling for more ethanol and the first boost in gas mileage in decades.” What the Democrats are really celebrating is their move to micromanage the energy market. They would like to micromanage all the markets. That way they can get more campaign contributions from all the industries that want to play in their markets.

We don’t need additional controls on the energy market, we need fewer. If the government would get out of the way private industry and a free market would eliminate any energy problems. The government is currently preventing the building of nuclear power plants, preventing the development of new domestic oil fields, and preventing the building of new oil refineries. Right here in my state Senator Mel Martinez boasts frequently about ‘protecting’ our gulf waters from becoming oil fields. There is no pressing need to reduce our dependence on oil in general; what we need is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

There is no real environmental gain from using ethanol instead of gasoline. The only benefit from ethanol is that it can be produced domestically and, therefore, reduces to some extent our dependence on foreign oil. We should welcome the development and production of alternative energy sources like ethanol, but leave them to the free market. If there is demand for ethanol someone will supply it. And there will be demand for it when oil prices get high enough. But ethanol is not the final answer.

The ultimate renewable energy source is the sun. When the sun stops shining we won’t need any more energy. If the government wants to sponsor some far-term basic research into new sources of energy it should put its money and effort into developing revolutionary ways of capturing solar energy. I’m not talking about capturing it through the production of corn and then extracting energy from the corn. I’m talking about more direct methods like the current use of solar cells to produce electricity. There has to be some breakthrough solution out there; we just need to get enough of the right people thinking about it.

_______________

The Senate bill calls for price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for oil products, including gasoline. Are they kidding? How do they expect to measure what is unconscionably excessive? Some court will throw that out the first time it is challenged. Perhaps they know that and are just trying to make some political mileage.