Overall, the energy plan proposed under Obama’s good name, is a lure. It views energy as cheap, a self contradiction, and takes some shiny objects for a serious foundation. Ignoring worldwide experience with energy policy does not help.
Patrice Ayme
Patriceayme.wordpress.com
TALK IS CHEAP, ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE.
January 21, 2009 by Patrice Ayme
ENERGY LURES.
***
Abstract: Changing energy policy without changing the cost of energy is a lure. It would make any change unattractive, and unbearably expensive for the government [yes, there is no contradiction: expensive for the People now, can be cheaper in the long run, for all concerned; watch what Europe has done, and is doing much more of].
Forgetting to build trains, while talking up hypothetical "hybrids", makes for a nice couple of mistakes that show that pork is not dead, and that the concept of a correct energy policy has not been the object of tiring brain work. But there are better ways to save energy, than to rest one’s mind.
Besides, the present energy plan, in its haste, forgets to mention aerospace completely, although this is one of the last industrial sectors where the USA is still a leader, and has something to trade with, and where one would not be throwing good money after bad, and a sector which is just at a point in time when it is certain that throwing money at existing technology would give spectacular results.
***
At the end of the following considerations on energy, we have reproduced the Obama energy plan, with comments.
That Obama plan, as it stands, is conspicuous by the absence of the only strategy that is known to work, according both to what common sense says, and what experience shows.
Obama says that he will end programs that do not work. Well, experience, worldwide, shows that the only energy plan that works is a strategy that was adopted long ago by France. As a result, France produces now less than a third of CO2 emission per unit of GDP, relative to the USA. Other methods have not worked [including a few that are still tried in Europe].
That strategy that has been proven to work in France, was then copied successfully by all of Western Europe. It is the policy of the 27 countries of the European Union, and even of a giant energy producer and exporter such as Norway. It is British policy. That policy is now propagating to Eastern Europe [making Ukraine anxious and furious]. So Obama’s energy plan does NOT mention the only strategy that is known to work for a wise energy policy: making ENERGY EXPENSIVE.
One makes energy expensive, first, and then one lets the free markets play in this new arena.
TAX ENERGY, OR AT LEAST TAX CARBON, TO PROVIDE A STABLE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT:
Energy prices are not regulated in the USA, preventing energy planning, and RUINING THE MARKET FOR CLEAN ENERGY. Robert Lutz, second of General Motors, a Swiss, said (originally in French): "Now that the price of gas has collapsed, we do not sell one hybrid anymore. Having the price of gasoline up and down every seven months, in wild oscillations, makes us stupid every six months. Franchement, j’en ai marre." ("Frankly, I had enough", although it’s much more robust in French). On Swiss TV, he was really angry (it’s OK to be angry in European psychology, because communicating the truth with passion is often viewed as more important than being so cool that nothing goes through). In Europe these energy price oscillations do not happen, because taxes keep energy prices always high, hence predictable (the poor get compensating subsidies).
As a result the USA is ever less efficient, relatively to the competition. This was bound to condemn US industry, in the long term, and it did [because if you stay in bed your entire life, having the easiest of times, you can’t compete].
TAX ENERGY TO PROVIDE REVENUE: That is self explanatory. The poor, and those whose jobs require a lot of energy, in Europe get compensating tax breaks [for example self employed fishermen get a subsidy when fuel gets too expensive]
TAX ENERGY TO MAKE PEOPLE VALUE ENERGY AND REALIZE IT’S PRECIOUS: That, too, is self explanatory. One can sing from the roof top of a big White House that one is going to do this, and one is going to do that, people don’t care, once they have turned off the TV. People will do it when they are forced to do it, because the alternatives are too costly.
Another strange obsession of the Obama plan, and democrats in general, is "plug-in hybrids". OK, that is better than flying saucers, but Toyota came in with their latest version of their Prius hybrid, and it’s not plug-in. Why? Because Toyota says that battery technology is not advanced enough.
Volkswagen has studied hybrids for years (as other top European car makers). Its conclusion is that they are not the most efficient solution in the present state of technology [Fall 2008]. A problem is that hybrid technology is heavy, and the heavier the car, the less efficient. Volkswagen said that the "Stop and Start" technology introduced in 2003 by its competitor, Peugeot-Citroen, does work and allows to save 15% of energy minimum, and that Volkswagen will deploy that instead [BMW intents to do the same]. Peugeot has been claiming up to 30% savings in city driving with that technology. Peugeot has the highest mileage family car [the 308, with well above 65 mpg].
In any case, it seems unwise that the Obama White House would suggest it knows car technology better than the best car companies in the world [Peugeot has an advanced hybrid diesel project, but just as Renault’s electric car, it is wrapped in secrecy; French car makers have the best overall fleet mileage in the world, causing very strong headaches at gas guzzling Mercedes].
IT IS NOT BECAUSE SOME TOP DEMOCRATS HAVE INVESTED IN HYBRID START-UPS, THAT HYBRIDS ARE GOOD. Verily, it is probable that start-ups in the automotive area will stay side shows. Companies such as Peugeot have existed for more than two centuries [making other machines], Daimler-Benz and Renault for more than century, and so on.
When talking about "hybrids" one has to realize that more than half of US electricity is produced by very dirty means [coal, etc...].
For politicians to force car makers, or any high tech companies, into the details of a particular technology is a mistake. The role of government should simply be to force the context of the market. For example, as now the Obama plan suggests to do, it would be good to do what has been done in France: big incentives and subsidies to buy efficient cars. In Europe one can buy some BMWs that make 55 mpg, precisely because gas is so expensive, and the CO2 emissions law, so low.
AND WHAT ABOUT TRAINS? That is a total mystery. The Obama administration took the same train as Lincoln, but it deserves better!
All the evidence indicates that Al Gore did not find a train start-up to invest in. How could he? There are only so many companies in the world that know how to make the best trains; one is Canadian [Bombardier], one is French, one is German, and then there are the Japanese and now the Chinese [the later two have been known to be, let’s say, more duplicative...]. HIGH SPEED TRAINS ARE A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THE USA. Light rail will also rejuvenate cities and make urbanization more energy and culturally efficient.
Now of course French and German trains going at 250 miles per hour use technology that the USA does not have. But the USA can license it, and learn to make it [the Japanese high speed trains started long ago by buying three fast French electric engines, and deconstructing them; for the USA in the future I am talking about lawful licensing]. The big US car companies could help make these trains. Europe uses presently 1,000 high speed train sets, and will have much more in the future. That is a lot of work, for a long time to come.
Also it would make the USA not just more efficient, but more friendly: instead of piling up in airports for ever, people would take trains; cheaper, and, most often, faster. So families and friends would see each other more often. Trains are more friendly and dignified than the glorified sardine cans in which people fly.
Another interest is that, although a French high speed train was bombed by Al Qaeda, destroying completely a carriage, killing all passengers there, the train then stopped, saving the rest of the passengers [even the biggest jumbo jet would have been pulverized].
Still another interest is that electric trains can be fed by renewable energy [in France more than 90% of the electricity is renewable or closed cycle nuclear; see below]. They do not have to run on hydrocarbons.
SOLAR THERMAL TOWERS and PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS in the Western deserts have a great potential, although they will require ugly power lines [which cannot be buried economically, unfortunately, it seems]... Environmental objections to them should be pulverized.
AND WHAT ABOUT MUCH MORE EFFICIENT PLANES? The somewhat ridiculous, but otherwise excellent, Boeing Aircraft company is firing workers, causing great hilarity in Toulouse, France, where Airbus headquarters are located [Airbus will fire nobody]. Airbus’ latest jet, the A380 Super Jumbo [some sitting 840 passengers have been ordered] makes 85 miles per gallon per passenger [with around 500 passengers]. In other words, it is superbly efficient. Both Boeing and Airbus are developing jets that are a bit smaller, which should be even more efficient [the 787 and the A350].
But Airbus does not have the capacity at this point to develop a very efficient successor to the A320, a much smaller jet.
The A320 is the one that ditched on the Hudson river, morphing itself into a water craft, thanks to its excellent pilot who was able to keep the plane flying without stalling at very low speed, thanks in turn to computerized electric controls fed by power from the Auxiliary Power Unit and an emergency RAM turbine. In other words, the Airbus jet did not crash, because it had technology much more advanced than those of its Boeing equivalent, the 737. It was a miracle, but also a warning: European technology is forging ahead, and even squadrons of American geese would not stand in the way.
To keep the USA leading in aerospace technology, the Obama administration should give money to Boeing to develop such a short range, efficient plane [the French government has started to suggest that they would be pleased if Airbus made some efforts towards a more efficient short range plane, and that they are definitively not pleased that in 20 years the A320 efficiency increased by only 2%, while that of the Super Jumbo jumped enormously].
Thus, thanks to well targeted subsidies, it should be possible to marry harmoniously industry, ecology, and even trade [instead of going into hypocritical legal battles with the French about aerospace subsidies].
***
Here is the Obama’s "Energy Plan Overview", with my own comments on the right in tilted letters, using capitals if I feel particularly strident:
Provide Short-term Relief to American Families
* Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation. [ABSOLUTELY NEEDED! EXCELLENT!]
* Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices. [A silly GIMMICK]
Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years
* Increase Fuel Economy Standards. [This is historically ineffective; instead, just converge towards European CO2 emissions]
* Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. [TOTALLY UNWARRANTED STEERING OF A COMPLETELY UNPROVEN, PECULIAR TECHNOLOGY BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION; UNSAVORY FINANCIAL INTEREST?]
* Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles. [Several times used by France, that very French method is now adopted by Germany; it has proven effective].
* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. [Euro CO2 emissions talked about above]
* A "Use it or Lose It" Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
* Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Create Millions of New Green Jobs
* Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. [Does "renewable" include nuclear? in France NUCLEAR FUEL IS RECYCLED AND BURNED AGAIN [instead of being put away as in the USA, with most of its energy unused, and very dangerous and polluting]: that makes nuclear energy "renewable", to a great extent. One calls that the "CLOSED NUCLEAR CYCLE"; the USA should ABANDON ITS "OPEN NUCLEAR CYCLE" which creates a strong nuclear waste problem; actually France transformed US nuclear "pits" in fuel that now sits, waiting to be used (!)].
* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency. [That can happen ONLY IF ENERGY IS EXPENSIVE].
* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually. [Will work only if energy is expensive]
* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology. [Unproven technology; meanwhile half of US electricity is from dirty coal].
* Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
* Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. [Cap and trade has been tried in Europe, under French leadership, but has encountered various difficulties].
* Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
As we implied, as long as one does not start with rising energy prices, this is just talk, and wishful thinking. Because, without the preliminary rise in energy prices, all the preceding is all too expensive for the deficit laden government to bear.
Americans love to hear that they will "lead". But, when one does not know how to do something, one learns by following first. Following others in energy policy is smart, ignoring the history of the rest of the world’s experiences is not.
Patrice Ayme.
Patriceayme.wordpress.com