The Persian Gulf mess has got the statists in Washington, D.C. calling once again for a National Energy Policy (NEP). It behooves responsible citizens then to consider just what such a policy might entail.
For starters, any NEP should not rely too heavily on any one energy source. Diversity is the key here. Oil, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear, wind, geothermal and even biological sources all have something to contribute and we should use each of them as appropriate.
By “appropriate” I mean that, while we may very well be able to convert automobiles to run on peanut shells or fly an airliner under nuclear power, that doesn’t mean that we should. The costs of doing so would be prohibitive. In most cases we should look for the most cost-effective energy source for a particular application.
Photovoltaic power (electricity from solar cells), for example, is more costly than conventionally generated electricity. Even so, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it. The need for mobility or the remoteness of a site, for example, may make photovoltaic the best choice when you consider the cost of running wires to the place where the power is needed. We may even come out ahead from an energy standpoint; if you don’t need to run wire, then you save the energy needed to make the wire.
So, a NEP should recognize that no two situations are alike and Washington should avoid handing down mandates that are arbitrary or, worse yet, politically inspired. Let decisions regarding energy sources be made by the people closest to the problems and who understand the local situations the best. Usually, this will be the consumers of the energy.
A good energy policy should also encourage conservation of energy supplies. Incentives should reward those who find a way to the same job with less energy. Everyone then has the potential to relieve the “energy crisis.”
Finally, a good National Energy Policy would encourage development of new energy sources. These days, trash and municipal refuse are successfully being used as fuel for the generation of electricity. Methane gas is being collected from existing landfills and burned in place of other fuels. Each such new source of energy adds to our energy stockpile and reduces dependence on oil imports. New ideas should be explored where there is a chance of: 1) widespread adoption; and 2) accompanying improvements in efficiency or economy.
The foregoing comprise a sound, efficient and economical energy policy and it can be had by simply keeping government out of the energy business. When Washington tinkers with the works, the market mechanism runs at less than its best.
I suppose that what a lot of people mean when they say they want a National Energy Policy is that they want freedom from dependance on foreign oil, freedom from cooercion by the likes of a Sadaam Husein. If that’s the case then they should say so rather than call for the government to meddle in every aspect of the energy market.
The energy situation, some would say “mess,” that we have now is a direct result of national policies. Also state and local policies. They’ve obviously made it more practical or economical to buy oil that’s been pumped somewhere overseas and hauled here in tankers than to pump oil from our own backyard.
The reasons for this are many and varied. Energy policy does not operate in a vacuum. It is affected by everything from tax considerations to environmental and employment regulations. Right now the mix of factors creates the incentive to import rather than pump. If depending too much on importing is undesireable, change the incentives.
This is a mess of our own making. You’d have thought the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-74 would have been a wake-up call but, no. We’re more dependent than ever on imported oil. It isn’t the lack of policies concerning energy that is the problem, it’s that we have too many policies making it hard to become energy independent. We can’t drill for new oil sources, we can’t build refineries. Perhaps if government meddled less in matters of energy, we’d be able to solve our energy crisis.