Redstate

1. 100 new pebble-bed nuclear power plants by 2015
   
   
2. $500 Million for Colorado shale development (the Shell process)
   

Hmmm.

That was a plan?

Frankly that wasn't a "plan", that was a wish-list.  Why not include fusion-powered spacecraft, time travel and a ringworld while you're at it.

As an example:

1.    Establish an aggressive goal to achieve oil savings of:

*    2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2015 (10 percent savings over 10 years) - which is MORE than the U.S. imports from the Middle East everyday. And reduce total oil demand in the United States by over 5 million barrels per day (or 20 percent in 20 years) by 2025

And how is this to be done?  What?  Just a detail?  So someone else is going to have to do the real work of trying to make your wish-list a reality?  

And just how is the oil usage to be reduced?

Higher energy taxes?  Forced reduced consumption?  Rationing?  Outlawing SUVs?  You do realise that hybrids take energy to manufacture right?  And there's also the issue of how to handle the scrapping of thousands of obsolete hybrids.  We're having trouble right now dealing with scrapping of obsolete computers because of the toxic materials inside them.  

All of which is going to take even more energy.

That wasn't a plan, and I'm frankly astonished that anybody would even reference it.

Part of energy independence requires a full court press on domestic production.

The problem with biofuels like ethanol is there is seldom an end-to-end energy analysis. When such an analysis is done (see, for instance, Ethanol isn't worth the energy), the production of such fuels actually increases the petroleum used rather than saving any. Ethanol is just a boondoggle for Midwestern corn farmers.

Here are three small suggestions: high temperature ceramic engines (increasing efficiency), efficiency indicators similar to those in hybrid cars, and thermal depolymerization.

Oil has value, whether we buy it or not. To pretend that us not buying it makes us safer, or weakens them, is just incorrect. We should use the cheapest energy available at any given time.

Distorting the market with subsidies, and pretending alternative fuels are less expensive than they are, is ignorant, and keeps everyone from being able to make rational decisions on fuels.

How about just allowing more exploration, allowing some nuclear plants, and leave things alone? We made it through a direct hit on the Gulf Coast, and if prices get back up, alternative oil technologies like shale become viable.

There's one thing I can guarantee-- if the decision to move to another fuel type needs to be made, the last place it should be made is in government.

...is like basing your retirement on clipping grocery store coupons.

Conservation can help at the margin. Alternative fuels may help, but must make sense in a total energy balance (which ethanol, for one, does not).

With all due respect, Congressman, 94% of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States is off limits for exploration. We must get serious about real solutions, not political expediencies.

I agree that even if the U.S. does not buy middle-east oil that they will be able to sell their oil (Europe, Russia, and especially China). However, right now we are vulnerable to short run supply shortages if OPEC or middle-east were to reduce supplies. Our strategic oil reserves are too small to sustain us through the long term process of finding alternative sources.

This is a weakness and as a national defense policy we should either create a very large strategic reserve which would be extreemly expensive, or my favorite is build enough coal to gasoline facilities to meet our strategic interests. These coal facilities have the advantage that while they may be expensive to build they can produce gasoline at a lower cost than from oil.

The article by Frank Gaffney didn't really mention many details of the Kingston plan, so it's not clear what it contains.

One HUGE source of energy which doesn't require foreign imports is NUCLEAR energy. It is based on well-established technology, and the fuel is plentiful and cheap, although nuclear power plants are expensive to build. We need to make them easier to permit, and open up Yucca Mountain once and for all for waste storage. If France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy, why can't we?

Nuclear energy could replace power plants based on fossil fuels, especially natural gas. Replacing gas plants by nuclear plants means more natural gas available for home heating, which could replace home-heating oil, if signif-icant tax incentives are available to promote the switch from oil to gas.

We also need to open the Continental Shelf, the Florida coast, and ANWR to oil drilling. For those worried about pollution of beautiful beaches, how many oil slicks were produced in the Gulf by hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Zero! If the rigs are well-regulated, and built to withstand storms, they won't produce oil slicks, but they CAN help with supplies. If there is more drilling along the entire coast, a hurricane won't hit all of them at once!

We also need to open areas of the Rocky Mountains to oil-shale exploration. Some geologists believe there are huge shale-oil deposits in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. It's more expensive to extract than Saudi oil, but if the price is high enough, it's worth the effort.

We need to make it easier to obtain permits for new refineries and capacity additions to existing refineries. American refineries are more versatile than most overseas refineries, and can handle cheaper, high-sulfur crude, but current environmental regulations make even minor capacity increases prohibitive in terms of paperwork required to obtain permits.

As another poster pointed out, we need to do an overall energy balance on alternative fuels...how much energy input is required to obtain them?

Hydrogen is a good example of this. It sounds attractive, and only emits water vapor, but if hydrogen is obtained from fossil fuel, the energy obtained from hydrogen less the energy required to generate it is less than the energy available from simply burning the fossil fuel.

However, if another energy source is found, hydrogen can be attractive. Such as using electricity from nuclear power plants to electrolyze water (split it into hydrogen and oxygen), then capture the hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

Some new technologies might need some research to get started, but Congress should be careful not to throw money at technologies whose low efficiency could never compete with existing fuels. Tax credits or deductions for investments in new technology work better, by allowing market forces (and private industry) to select the most efficient energy sources. We also need to ease the permitting process for new refineries and nuclear power plants, so that these proven technologies can expand to the demand.

Having a "plan" to reduce energy imports is a good idea in principle, but we need to know what's in it, since the devil is often in the details. We also need lots of scientists and engineers to study it, and make the best recommendations. Details, anyone?

Congressman, by linking Frank Gaffney (a man I have tremendous respect for), you're implicitly emphasizing  Frank's key priority, which is to reduce America's geopolitical, military and security exposures that result from our dependence on imported petroleum. This is an exceedingly crucial priority, but it must be carefully distinguished from the longer-term goal of transforming the way our society uses energy.

If you look at Frank's priorities, then there is a significant potential role for government action in the near term. The best example would be to quickly open up the many areas in American territory which are currently offlimits to oil and gas exploration. There are some other possible actions which you can easily imagine, that would get me shouted down if I mentioned them here. A point that Frank often makes is that we are currently funding both sides of the war on terror, which is an awfully bad situation to be in.

Now in respect of the longer term goal of transforming our economy and our lives so as to achieve the intersecting aims of radical efficiency, vastly higher productivity, and minimal impact on the environment: with great respect, Congressman, government action here can help only at the margins. The ideas in your plan of action, while very very good and worthwhile, are in no sense "big" ideas.

I fully agree with your position.  Conservation is a nice idea, like the futile gesture of lowering your home thermostat by two degrees, but adding a few MPG to new vehicles will be cancelled out by the millions of more vehicles on the road over the coming years, while waiting for the attrition of the existing "inefficient" vehicles.  We need to fully exploit our own oil potential while concurrently seeking a radical alternative and embarking on a "space program" type initiative.

Congressman Kingston, while I appreciate your hard work in putting your ideas for energy independence together, you did not substantively address any of the comments posted to your description of your bill.  I am new here, but I come to RedState  because it is a place where like minded people (and some not so like minded) debate ideas in the interest of furthering Republican and Conservative principles.  Dismissing the constructive criticism you received on your first posting on this topic thusly:

A number of you have weighed in on my plan, and I want to thank you for giving your thoughts, queries, and comments. Clearly, we may not all agree on the roadmap to success, but we can all agree that we need a solution now

is not debating in the spirit of this site.  It is campaigning.  This is not a campaign website.  

In my comment on your last post, I posed several questions concerning domestic production.  These included exploration in the mountain west and offshore drilling on the east and west coast.  From what I can see, you have not answered either of these inquiries.  I do not need to read the attached op-ed to realize that you think your plan is a good one.  I assume that if you didn't think so, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.  

A number of people have weighed in on this post already reflecting your unsatisfactory response to their questions about your plan.  I dare say, congressman, that your ideas would be received more warmly here and elsewhere if you took the time to really read, reflect upon, and respond to these questions and criticisms.

Thank you.  

I was pondering this point when I got to this post. The last post did indeed have something of substance to add. This one is just a "look how smart I am" post.

The plan got a somewhat tepid reception when posted here, however the fact that it was posted was a good thing. It affirms RedState as a place to find conservative eyeballs and a place that may be used to influence conservative opinion.

But this post is pretty vacuous when it comes to substance. I guess that's why I'm not an editor here. By the fact that it was promoted to the front page says that the local gods think having a congressman putting stuff here outweighs the rather blatant "look at me" aspect of this post. I just hope that campaign ads thinly disguised as diaries don't become the norm.

He'll get more than enough of that from his political opponents (who by and large are our opponents as well). Let's have a healthy debate here, come to some conclusions, and help the Congressman refine his plan. He can then carry the flag (our flag) into battle.

Excellent summary of the situation. Any government intervention will make us less secure. Any economist can tell them that.

The problem that Washington has is the need to do something. It doesn't matter if the action is good, bad, or neutral but inaction is wrong when faced by the crisis of the day. If there's a problem then there should be something that the best and brightest in Washington should be able to do to solve. Why trust the vagaries of the markets when when we have congressmen on our side?

But indeed the markets are the summation of the wisdom of the entire populace. That's why these market distorting subsidies never work. Sure people will buy Ethanol if sufficient subsidies are applied to make it price competitive, but only then. Anything can become price competitive with sufficient subsidization.

I've got an energy plan of my own...Open up drilling, both offshore and onshore throughout the US. Create a one stop licensing office for nuclear plants and oil refineries. Make gas pipeline licensing easier.  In essence reduce the footprint of government in the industry. These will never fly, showing that the national concensus doesn't think that the energy problem is very bad. So an extended congressional vacation on the subject is the next best plan.

If you haven't already. He's a very interesting guy. As I said upthread, the new piece that Kingston is adding with this post is an (implicit) emphasis on the near-term national security aspects of energy independence. Sorry to repeat myself, but "fuel independence" (referring to petroleum) is a very different set of issues from "energy independence." The Congressman may perhaps not have meant to be so upfront about it, but the solution sets are very different as well. And in regard to the former, there is a role for government action.

I'm sorry but the congressman's bill does almost nothing to reduce America's future need for oil and gas and I believe actually harms America by allowing politicians to pat themselves on the back while ignoring a larger world view on not just energy issues, but the U.S. and world economy:

1. Again, a growing economy requires more energy even if the energy input per GDP is reduced. I see nothing in this bill which addresses the need for more energy.
   
   
2. Although transportaion fuel needs make up a major portion of the U.S. oil usage, chemical production and power plant usage alone can use almost all the current U.S. production. With that production declining where does the congressman think we are going to get the oil to make lightweight plastics and carbon based products which will increase our automobile fuel economy? Either our oil will come from overseas to make those products or those products will have to be imported from unstable countries. We can then thank the congressman for letting good paying manufacturing jobs go overseas.
   
   
3. Again, significant amounts of our natural gas production is associated with oil fields. Natural gas is used to make ammonia for fertilizers as well as burned in power plants for electricity. Without increasing natural gas production, I don't see how we are going to run our power plants or provide fertilizers aconomically to our farmers. I can't wait to hear the politicians wail when we are importing ammonia and fertilizers from the middle east to grow corn here for ethanol.
   
   
4. The problem I have with this plan is that alternative sources of energy are not likely to be competitive with oil and gas, or nuclear power usage over the next 20 years. In a world where we are competing against cheaper labor economies like China and India why would we want to hobble our economy with higher cost fuel and raw material inputs? China and India will surely buy the cheaper alternative.

Perhaps I was a bit too strong.  I didn't mean to upbraid the congressman and I hope he doesn't take my comments in that way.  I simply wanted to point out that he did not substantively address the comments posted to his original diary on energy independence.  If the congressman is unwilling to answer specific questions about his plan from this community, then this community cannot assist in refining his plan.  In which case he won't be carrying "our" flag into battle, but simply waving his own.

What do we know about the expert staff that Mr. Kingston is using to help formulate this plan?

Congressman, would you care to encourage your peeps to join our debate here?

Maybe you should review more than one professor's 25 year old research.

This site has a number of good links, some of which address Prof. Pimentel's rehashed assertions.

Friends-

Congressman Kingston is currently crisscrossing his district in Georgia attending events. He thanks you all for your interest and comments. He has asked that I forward a few answers to some of the questions which have been raised.

Please keep your comments coming, Jack truly appreciates the energy and ideas coming in from the blogosphere.

1. WHY DOESN'T THIS LEGISLATION ADDRESS ALL FORMS OF ENERGY, E.G., NUCLEAR, SOLAR, ETC?

Thanks to the hard work of House Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Congress has already passed comprehensive legislation which addresses some, if not all, of these areas. If you have not already, take a minute to READ the President's remarks from August when he signed this legislation. And yes, the Congressman supported this legislation. One area Jack would like to see us do more in is our dependence on oil for our cars and trucks.

2. WHY AREN'T WE EXPLORING IN ANWR/DEEP SEA ETC.?

The Congressman has supported the exploration of ANWR for quite some time, and as the representative who represents the ENTIRE coast of Georgia, he also believes we need to consider deep sea exploration for oil and natural gas. This exploration would be more than 100 miles out to sea and can be done safely and cleanly.

The bottom line is that exploration legislation has been - and will continue to be - a part of  the energy discussion and Mr. Kingston will continue to support it. While some Democrats and some Republicans may not agree with exploration of domestic resources, there are other issues which we can all agree on and we need to get started on them now while there is still time.

The facts are clear regarding domestic resources: America does not have enough proven reserves to sustain our long-term fuel needs. In fact, 78 percent of all proven reserves are in OPEC-nations, and on top of that, 98 percent of proven reserves are OUTSIDE of the United States. Take a look at this graph.

This bill is about bringing alternatives to oil to the market - a balanced approach that includes the clean and safe use of our own natural resources. This bill also recognizes that we can't drill our way out of this problem alone and we can't carpool our way out of this problem we need a balanced approach and new sources of fuel.

DOES THIS BILL INCREASE CAFÉ STANDARDS?

No.  This bill does not change existing CAFE levels for cars and light trucks.  It does establish a new standard for large trucks (above 10,000 pounds) to give truckers the same confidence in the efficiency of the vehicles they buy as consumers have today on cars and light trucks.

DOES THE BILL CHANGE THE ETHANOL RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD (RFS) FROM H.R. 6?

No. The RFS remains the same. We set a goal of "E10 in 10" beyond the RFS which would more than double the amount of Ethanol used from the levels achieved in the RFS.  We want American drivers to have a choice the next time they fill up between a gallon of oil imported from the Middle East and a gallon of fuel grown by American farmers and produced by American refiners.

WHY LIFT THE TARIFF ON IMPORTED ETHANOL?

Brazil is a real success story - over 40 percent of their cars and trucks run on sugar based Ethanol today - If America is going to reach an E10 standard and beyond we will need a balance of imports and domestic production.  If Brazil can produce a gallon of fuel for 80 cents a gallon why would we want to tax it 53 cents a gallon when we don't tax oil from Iraq or Saudi Arabia?

By reaching a goal of nationwide "E10 in 10" with a guarantee that over 60 percent will be domestic production, we can dramatically expand Ethanol domestic production while cutting oil imports by over 20 billion gallons per year.

FYI, some of you may find this article from the Washington Post upon introduction of Congressman Kingston's legislation interesting:

Lawmakers Back Energy Independence Measure; Reliance on Mideast Oil Poses Danger, Group Says

Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page D03

A bipartisan group of lawmakers who often are at odds with one another yesterday joined forces to propose legislation aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

The lawmakers, including members of the House and Senate, said the country's thirst for foreign oil transcends party and ideological differences. They said that national security is at risk because of increasing dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East.

"We cannot afford to be held captive by these unstable sheikdoms that can be toppled over or try to blackmail us," said Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), one of the supporters of the measure.

The lawmakers are seeking tax incentives for automakers to build more efficient vehicles, more incentives for consumers to buy them and increased use of renewable fuels. The measure has been pushed by a group called the Set America Free Coalition, which includes environmentalists, conservative groups and other activists.

Supporters of the legislation are a diverse set, including Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). In the House, Republican Conference Vice Chairman Jack Kingston (Ga.) is backing the measure, as are Reps. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) and John Barrow (R-Ga.).

Debates over energy legislation -- especially drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- often touch off partisan disputes. Democrats tried unsuccessfully to insert language into an energy bill approved this summer directing the president to develop programs to reduce oil consumption.

"We usually get bogged down in a drilling question," Kingston said. "This bill does not go that route."

Supporters of the measure said they were working to attract broad support and described their bill as "a work in progress." They did not immediately attract the support of leaders of the committees overseeing energy issues.

The energy bill approved this summer and signed into law by President Bush in August was characterized by supporters as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. But the measure contained few provisions to accomplish that goal.

The legislation outlined yesterday calls for reducing U.S. oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day within 10 years and much more within 20 years.

So far this year, net imports to the United States have accounted for about 59 percent of the country's oil consumption, according to the Energy Department. The percentage has been increasing slightly in recent years.

The United States has been using an average of nearly 21 million barrels of oil a day this year.

You can find the full article at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR200511160
2267.html

If the central planners of the Federal government are going to intervene they

would do best focusing on the power production side and leaving the consumer side

to sort itself out.   Trying to forcibly alter the actions of 300 million

consumers is a losing war (wait.. let me be the first.. 'The War on Oil') while

there are a limited number of participants in power generation.  I'm not saying I

don't view high oil consumption for personal transportation as a generally bad

thing, I do - but trying to force change rarely if ever works.  

Further, none of those items mentioned address efficiency. Shouldn't we do a bit

more than replace an OPEC subsidy with a farm subsidy?  Perhaps a better starting

point would be removing the CAFE exemption for SUV's and light trucks?

Remove as many barriers to nuclear production and increase r&d for clean coal

would be where Congress could do the most good.