For the past three consecutive State of the Union addresses President Bush has stressed the importance of developing alternative energy sources and the reduction of United States dependence on foreign oil sources. Furthermore, during the president’s most recent State of the Union address he mentioned global warming as being a “serious challenge” the U.S. is about to face.
Not much has changed about U.S. energy policy since the president took office. Our energy sources are used in roughly the same proportions as they were in 2000, with oil, coal, and natural gas being the key components. But the winds of change may actually be starting to blow in the United States, and the energy industry knows it. Large companies and corporations are becoming increasingly wary of growing public concern about global warming. They now see the prospect of having federal carbon emission standards pass Congress not a question of if, but when. They’ve stepped up their lobbying efforts not to block such standards, but to determine the form these standards might take. Stiff restrictions are likely to be harmful to energy companies heavily invested primarily in coal and oil power plants, while at the same time helpful to companies that have a larger share of their assets invested in cleaner burning natural gas and nuclear power plants. Also of interest is the tax break/subsidy package that is likely to be bundled with any emission standard legislation. This is of particular importance to the farm lobby, which is seeking every advantage it can to make ethanol more competitive.
The bottom line is that United States energy demand is growing, and emissions standards are likely to influence the form additional energy might take. There are only a few viable places new energy supply can come from, the first of which is coal. Coal has the advantage of being quite plentiful in American mines. Coal’s disadvantage is that it is the most carbon–intensive of all major U.S. energy sources, adding additional coal plants won’t halt or even reduce rising carbon emissions.
A second method of adding to the U.S. energy supply is to use ethanol to supplement oil products in fuels. This has the benefit of providing many jobs in the U.S. as well as lowering emissions, but if U.S. demand for ethanol grows too quickly it could drive up the price of other corn-based products, which includes many types of food.
The third option is the expansion of nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is one of the few methods of generating electricity on a large scale that also boasts having no carbon emissions whatsoever. Nuclear power certainly has its drawbacks compared to other power sources, including the issue of waste disposal and the presence of unique safety hazards, but these disadvantages are often exaggerated by journalists and the general public.
The truth of the matter is that there is no silver bullet to solve our energy woes, no one source we can use for all applications. The best solution will most likely require a combination of all the above solutions, plus others that I have overlooked. All we can do is strive to find a balance that serves our needs as best as possible, and it is pretty clear that right now that balance is broken.
