Energy Sanity -- Part Two

This weekend, President Obama made the energy the subject of his weekly address. A video of that address can be seen by clicking on the title to this post. According to Obama, new green energy is the wave of the future for the economy. Solar and wind energy has been stopped for years by special interests according to the president. Now, thanks to his efforts, new solar and wind projects will be built that will double our energy output from these sources in the next three years. Finally, Obama says that the choice is stark: either we go ahead with federally subsidized solar and wind projects or we remain where we are now, dependent on foreign oil with things getting worse each day.

Although this was structured in the typical way that Obama's speeches usually are, I find this one truly infuriating. Once again, Obama sets up a false choice. There are clear alternatives to wind and solar energy that obama just does not mention. The biggest of these is natural gas. In his speech, Obama touts a solar plant in California that is about to get underway and which will provide 1000 jobs over the next few years. Natural gas drillng in the marcellus shale formation in the state of Pennsylvania alone is estimated to provide over 220,000 jobs by the end of this year alone. Obama focuses on doubling the share of the national energy output from wind and solar by 2013. That means an increase from 1.5% to 3% of electricity generation for these methods. A commitment to natural gas could result in conversion of millions of cars and trucks to that energy by that time as well as the conversion of electricity generating plants as well. It would seem possible to change maybe 5-7% of the energy generation in this country to natural gas in the next two years and to increase that by many multiples in not that long a time thereafter. Obama, however, chooses to ignore natural gas.

One more thing needs to be pointed out: Right now, solar energy plants like the one Obama is touting make sense only with government subsidies. they are simply too expensive to produce energy in competition with oil or coal. While it may make sense to subsidize the start of this industry so that it achieves sufficient size to be self supporting, it may also be that these plants will forever require a subsidy. Natural gas, however, is low enough in price that no subsidy is needed. Rather, a regulatory atmosphere that guarantees supplies of nat gas at a sufficiently low price should suffice to guarantee that no government subsidiy would ever be required. Government action to underwrite the initial investments in nat gas filling stations would move the program along more quickly, but these would not be ongoing investments.

So, once again, in speaking about energy, Obama has been dishonest with the people of this country. He speaks in half truths and sets forth false choices. I cannot understand why that is. is he so wedded to the environmental mantra of wind and solar that he cannot think of anything else? I hope not. but nothing else seems to explain Obama's long standing reticence with regard to natural gas.