Fuel efficient Hogwash

The Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future released by the White House is a massive dose of nonsense dressed up to look like an energy plan. Here are a few examples:

A major point of the Blueprint is what it describes as "an ambitious but achievable standard for America" proposed by Obama in the State of the Union: "By 2035, we will generate 80 percent of our electricity from a diverse set of clean energy sources – including renewable energy sources like wind,solar, biomass, and hydropower; nuclear power; efficient natural gas; and clean coal."

This is quite a goal. In a mere 24 years we will have a country with 80% of electricity coming from these sources. Of course, it might make sense to llok at what we now use to generate electricity. Right now, just over 90% of the electricity in the country comes from three major sources: coal, nuclear and natural gas. If you add in wind, solar, biomass and hydropower, the percentage of electric power now generated from these sources is about 99% of total production. (Only about 1% of electrical energy now comes from oil.) So what's the goal? Are we going to reduce the percentage of electricity coming from the named sources? that makes no sense. Is the distinction here between "clean" coal and the coal now being burned? That too makes no sense. There is no definition of what constitutes "clean" coal. Indeed, since the first efforts at reducing air pollution in the early 1970's, the overwhelming bulk of emissions from buring coal have been removed from the process. All coal being burned today is clean. Is it to be made cleaner? The Blueprint is completely silent on this point.

Another amazing bit of nonsense in the Blueprint is its claim that US oil and gas production is growing. Since this is a blueprint for government action, the proper quesiton is not whether or not production is growing, but rather would it grow more quickly with other actions by the government. Indeed, the projection is that oil production in the US will be fully 10% less than it otherwise would have been next year due to the moratorium on off shore drilling alone. There is a further reduction due to the failure to grant drilling permits in Alaska and elsewhere on government lands. So, just with regard to oil alone, US production has been pushed DOWN due to Obama's actions. What has allowed the growth in production has been the technology that allows natural gas and gas liquids to be extracted economically from shale. Even here, the Blueprint shows that Obama is planning to get government in the way of growing that production. It lists three separate agencies that it wants to involve in regulating hydrofracking.

There is also the crazy push for electric vehicles. This is in essence a push towards coal powered cars since just about half of US electric power comes from coal (excuse me "clean" coal). Such a shift will result in an increase in air pollution and emissions -- it just won't come directly from the cars. Of course, were Obama to push for natural gas powered cars and trucks -- vehicles that are currently available from a few manufactureres -- there would be a reduction in oil usage, a reduction in fuel importation and a major reductioin in emissions as well. No wonder Obama did not support such vehicles.

There is one last part of the Blueprint that I do not want to omit from this discussion. Although the plan is screwed up in a major way when it comes to energy policy, it does make a major point that the government is going to push an initiative to promote careers for women in the clean energy field. So in the face of a severe energy problem facing the USA, the government is going to devote its time and resources to the gender makeup of the workforce. The Obamacrats are like moths drawn to the flame of liberal orthodoxy. No matter the problem it gets converted into one with victims and victimizers. Who cares about solving the problems when we can make sure the the workforce is properly proportioned in terms of gender, race and national origin.