Editorials

In the headlong rush to dump fossil fuels as an energy source, a countless number of alternatives are being championed ranging from wind and solar power to more nuclear plants.

The list of “potential” new energy sources seems to keep growing, but when it comes to making up more of the total energy production pie progress; it is closer to a snail’s pace. This condition prevails despite the infusion of generous government subsidies to spur expansion of just about any alternative energy idea.

Also plaguing energy alternatives is the fact that so far, most of them have serious problems. An example is ethanol, which has gotten a tremendous push by the federal government, but turns out to be quite costly to produce. It also gobbles so much of the products used to produce it, such as corn, shortages are created that send food prices soaring.

Wind power is getting a lot of attention in Texas with the state recently announcing a $4.9 billion expansion program heavy on funding new transmission lines.

T. Boone Pickens, a well-known oil tycoon in Texas and Oklahoma, has made an all-out leap to wind power, calling for massive government investments in wind power; subsidies some say he is eying for his own collection.

Little appeal to Pickens’ grand wind power scheme is indicated outside the region, and it has been far from overwhelming even close to home. Putting up enough windmills to produce large amounts of power requires vast areas of lands of little use for anything else. West Texas is the clear leader in this field.

Perhaps typical of some of the national reaction to Pickens’ plan was that from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute.

“Call me stupid, but why not build coal or nuclear plants instead of windmills?” Bast asked. “They can be built where people are, at a fraction of the cost, on a fraction of the land, with nearly zero environmental impact, and without invoking eminent domain.”

Windmills, he suggested, are “lumbering (frequently malfunctioning) giants” used to generate an intermittent supply of energy that is a fraction of what a few coal or nuclear plants can produce.

Under Pickens’ plan, Bast said, “Intermittency would still be a major problem. We would still need base-load capacity for ‘spinning reserve’. Mr. Pickens is looking for subsidies: eminent domain to run the new transmission lines and build windmills on private land, subsidies to build new power lines, and production subsidies to windmill farm operators. Shame on him.”

Everybody keeps wishing for a breakthrough of some kind that will open the door to that ideal, endless energy supply envisioned for the future. The reality is a single solution to today’s high energy prices is nowhere in sight and seems the most remote possibility for relief anytime soon.

Turning these different schemes into a meaningful national energy policy is perhaps today’s most significant challenge for America and Americans. The immediate need, however, is to work out the best rational approach for bringing relief from high oil and gas prices

Every step taken or proposal made to help should be considered, suggests Zonia M. Pino, a legislative specialist at Heartland. Even small steps on the road to lower energy costs and lower gas prices are important.

But there are some key actions that are necessary before true relief will be felt at the gas pump, Pino said.

That won’t happen “until the United States establishes a comprehensive energy plan that includes, among nuclear and coal technologies, the oil and natural gas reserves located in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as the oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida.”

Legislators of all persuasions appear to be ready to step up and support, and subsidize, just about any kind of alternative energy plan of significant promise, and some not so significant. Yet they can’t agree on the one idea that provides just about the only reasonable hope for relief soon, or even in the foreseeable future — lifting the federal ban on offshore and ANWR drilling.

Today’s advanced oil drilling technologies eliminate environmental risk concerns which were the basis for imposing exploration bans. Continued stubborn opposition seems irrational.

Even those who may be honest in saying they don’t think it would help, have nothing to lose by agreeing to give it a try, unless they are more concerned with saving political face than really trying to solve serious national problems.

Boosting domestic oil supply by lifting federal drilling bans is not proposed as the ultimate solution to the nation’s energy problems.

It does promise, however, to make the waiting period better for everyone as development work on that solution continues.

()