'Quick' Hit for Wednesday

Quick Editor's note: When people become allied with an individual candidate, they get emotional when discussing politics and tend to automatically defend that candidate's actions. I would hold us to a higher standard, realizing that these people mean to govern us and we should be able to constructively discuss their positions without getting personal. I'm an American way before I'm a Republican/Democrat, and pledge no allegiance to any candidate (and not just because I don't like either candidate). If we ever want to be able to work out our issues, we need to think that way. If someone states "Senator McCain has no vision, his plan on energy is worthless and he is erratic (to borrow from Obama)" we should be able to react without emotion. If I say "Obama is way too far left, and his economic plan will have disastrous effects on our economy" does your pulse quicken? If so, you're too close to the candidate, and I would gently suggest reorienting your priorities.

ENERGY

I like to take what I feel is a pretty middle of the road, common sense approach to energy. I am not delusional enough to think that oil will last well into the next century while satisfying both our needs and those of our friends overseas at the rate our global consumption is increasing. We need to find either a new way of living, or a new source of energy.

Examining the candidates positions has become ever more difficult, since both have moved to the center on the issue. It would be much easier to examine their positions as they held them in the primaries. A quick survey would find McCain against offshore drilling, and Obama against drilling (offshore or not), coal, and nuclear. Of course, now both candidates now favor all those positions, while adding their support for wind, solar, and whatever else they can think of (including Obama's vague position to 'fast track alternative fuels.' 10$ to whoever can tell me how you fast track something that doesn't, as of yet, actually exist).

There are two types of energy of concern to us: energy for the production of electricity, and energy that drives our modes of transportation (mainly cars). Lets start with the later.

DRILLING FOR OIL

There is only one reason to be against drilling for more oil: Harming the environment. There is no other good reason to not do this, including Global Warming. The reason Global Warming should have no affect on our decision to drill or not to drill is the very plain fact that we are going to use the oil whether it is ours or not. Not drilling won't reduce our consumption. So it darn well better be ours. Here is the logic behind drilling:

In June 1998, the price per barrel of crude oil was $11. Ten years later in June of this year, a barrel of crude oil cost $126. In ten years oil prices went up $115 per barrel, a ten fold increase. In June of 1998, the average cost for a gallon of gas was $1.23. In 2005 it was $2.10, a 'nominal' increase of 70% over 7 years. In June of 2008, the average cost for a gallon of gas was $4.07. In the three years from 2005-2008, gas went up by $2/gallon. If you extrapolate that out as a percentage doubling every three years, in ten years (2018) gas would cost $32/gallon. Unrealistic, obviously. If you extrapolate it as a real number ($2 increase every 3 years) gas would cost $10/gallon in 2018. Either way, in the next ten years gas is going to be very, very expensive. This is not only possible, but very likely because a cartel of oil producing countries set the price of oil, and people need to realize that some of those countries have publicly expressed a desire to destroy our economy (Iran and Venezuela). Letting them price the lifeblood of our economy is at best incredibly stupid, and at worst traitorous.

I didn't use a 10 year example as some random point in time. I am speaking in terms of 10 year blocks because that is the time frame Senator Obama uses for getting us off foreign oil and on to alternative fuels, without additional drilling (well, to be fair in the last month he has sort of embraced limited domestic drilling with certain caveats having to be met first).

Here is where I need Obama supporters to be emotionally detached from their candidate: Obama's plan on energy is perhaps the dumbest plan anyone has proposed in quite a while. While it is not devoid of it's benefits, overall it brings nothing to the table that would in any way benefit me or you or the average citizen. Let's look at things as they are, currently.

Statistically speaking, it takes 9 years for 1/2 of the American fleet of automobiles to turn over. In a real life application this means that if every single car sold in the U.S. this year was a fully electric automobile, then in 9 years 1/2 of all U.S. cars would be electric cars. The other 1/2 would still be a form of car we're driving today (gas guzzler, or hybrid of some sort). This is very important because it means that in 10 years the 1/2 poorest Americans (those who can't afford to buy a new, expensive automobile) will be driving gas run cars when gas will cost $10/gallon. The poorest Americans. Those who cannot afford those types of costs are going to be the ones paying it. Obama's plan does absolutely nothing to avoid this reality (except raise corporate taxes on the U.S. automobile companies trying to get us cheap electric cars to begin with...but that is a discussion on taxes, not energy). I believe this analogy is realistic, because right now the best cars we have only add 100% fuel economy with their respective hybrid versions. That may sound like a lot, but to get ourselves off oil we'll have to reduce our consumption of it by a lot more than getting 50 miles to the gallon instead of 25. Hybrid cars are a great step, but won't solve anything in the long run, because gas prices will continue to rise.

OPEC (Oil Producing and Exporting Countries) controls the price of oil, by getting together and deciding what to charge based on what they view the market's ability is to sustain those prices. Today, OPEC called for a decrease in the amount of barrels of oil produced per day. OPEC is reacting to a $70 decrease in the cost per barrel of oil over the last couple of months. Their reaction should alarm all of us. If we were paying $4.07/gallon this summer, what will lowering production do? Where will prices go if there is less oil to buy? It certainly won't lower prices. They only way to lower prices is to increase output. Or at least threaten OPEC's monopoly on the oil market by threatening to open up your own domestic drilling. And who in OPEC is calling for the reduction? Iran and Venezuela. Two countries very hostile to us, and two countries Senator Obama wants to sit down and talk without preconditions. Do we really want our economy and livelihood to be at the behest of dictators who have called for an end to the 'Great Satan'? Is that sound energy policy? Would it not be better to produce our own oil?

To bring stability to our energy market, Senator McCain wants to drill offshore. Our current government enforced restrictions on off shore drilling allow Cuba to install oil platforms closer to our shore than we can. Yes, you read that right, Cuba has oil rigs closer to American beaches than the U.S. government will allow U.S. companies to drill. Does that make sense to you? Removing those restrictions would allow our companies greater access to the rich resources in the ocean floor. And just so you don't think this means we'll have tons of platforms 200 yards off all our beaches, a lot of these oil rich areas are over 50 miles from the beach (the horizon is 25 miles away, so you wouldn't be able to see them). Opening those areas up to drilling would have multiple benefits: create jobs, create new taxable corporate income, increase the supply of oil, while sending a message to the world that the U.S. is serious about our oil consumption/production and our energy security, which would bring prices down.

We should also drill in ANWR, the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. I realize there is a lot of opposition to this, but the area most likely to be drilled is extremely small. If you picture a football field, this area would be the size of one link of chain on the first down marker. That is very, very tiny.

Senator Obama states that drilling wont bring down the cost of oil before 10 years. Ignoring for a moment that Shell was able to take an oil platform from conceptual drawings to operation in less than two years, our previous price estimations noted above would indicate that bringing the cost down in 10 years would be beneficial. Drilling now is an investment in the future, and perhaps if our past politicians had recognized that we wouldn't be in this mess.

No one is suggesting that we can replace all the oil we import with our own domestic supply. Although, current estimations have projected that the United States has more oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming than the entire Middle East has in 'liquid' oil. We also cannot rely on oil forever. It should merely be used as a stop-gap measure. Here is the general idea: If we start producing our own oil, with our own companies, and our own citizen-employees, to offset our costs while strengthening our domestic security, then as we gradually decrease our consumption over the next 20 years (by increasing automotive efficiency and moving towards alternative fuels) not only will we have given ourselves those new jobs, taxable base and security, but we will end up with an oil EXPORT rather than an oil IMPORT. When we are finally using more electric vehicles than gas guzzlers, we will be in the amazing situation of actually exporting oil to other countries rather than importing it. This is phenomenally important, as we are spending $700 Billion/year on importing oil. That weakens our dollar and increases our trade deficit. Think about it: a complete reversal of fortune in only 20 years.

Senator Obama completely lacks the vision of a situation like that. In fact, the last 30 years of both Republicans and Democrats have lacked that vision. Of course, when gas was 11$/barrel it was easier to look the other way. Senator Obama doesn't really have a policy that addresses fuel economy, except 'fast tracking alternative fuels.' Most of his policies are about electrical production, like wind, nuclear, or clean coal. So lets look at those next.

CLEAN COAL

Both candidates now support clean coal, which is good. It's clean, and since it is an American resource using it would 1) create jobs, 2) create $ for the economy and the government through taxing, and 3) would be relatively cheap as the product is local. As an additional plus, there is no international cartel (OPEC) to artificially inflate the price.

WIND

Before being overtaken by the UK this October, Denmark was the world leader in getting their power from wind farms. While wind is a fantastic means of getting power for our homes, it isn't without it's issues. More recently however, Denmark hasn't been building any more wind farms. They get approx. 20% of their energy from wind, and the reason their production has peaked at that amount is because wind is, generally, not reliable. Some days it is really windy, and some days it isn't. Additionally, there isn't any good and affordable way to store the energy on above than average windy days.

In the United States, we have a few hurdles to wind energy. First, our entire energy infrastructure would have to be rebuilt. The windiest parts of the country aren't the ones that use the most energy, and currently there is no way to transport massive amounts of energy from the Heartland to the Coasts. With no way to store the surplus power, we'd have to re-build our entire electrical network. Another problem is simple: on the days we'd require the most energy (very hot days), it is generally the least windy. Again, with no means to store the surplus power on good days, we would be faced with rolling blackouts. Both political parties have failed at making this a priority, voting over and over against establishing wind farms offshore or on hundreds of thousands of acres in the middle of the country. Which brings us to another problem, the massive amount of wind mills required to generate the amount of power we would require.

Again we're faced with the reality that this technology does not currently exist. It would be extremely difficult to 'fast track' a technology that doesn't exist, and if you're talking about redesigning the entire power grid for the United States, get ready for a massive increase in taxes to fund that construction.

NUCLEAR

Nuclear power is another good alternative. France gets 80% of its power from 58 nuclear power plants. Of course, 64 million people live in France while over 300 million people live in the United States. To get the same ration of energy production would require 5 times the amount of nuclear power plants for the U.S. We would need build 300 or so plants, and McCain is only proposing 48 additional plants to add to the 33 we already have.

The other problem is nuclear waste. Currently in France a family of four, using energy for 20 years, produces waste about the size of a cigarette lighter. Their current system has them store the waste, not bury it. They do this because they want to have access to it in the future when they are planning on scientists being able to deconstruct it in ways we don't know yet.

SOLUTION

There are two types of energy we need to worry about: automobile, and electrical power generation. On the first front, only Senator McCain offers anything even remotely helpful. His support for offshore drilling (and a running partner who supports drilling in ANWR) would drive oil prices down, create jobs, create revenue for the government, and increase our security. Senator Obama, because of his politically leftist affiliations, is very much against drilling. His solution, to 'fast track' alternative fuels is unrealistic. Additionally, the only way for the government to fast track them is to give money to the private sector to do the research. Essentially, they tax us more and give it to someone else. This relies way to heavily on the government. Again, we get a peek into his theory on how government should function, and in his world he would have a large government take over the role of the private sector. There is $7.5 Trillion in the private sector, compared to the $2.5 Trillion in the government's budget. Where would the discovery of alternative fuels probably arise?

As for electrical power production, they both have fair policies. A mixture of sources would be wise. While Senator McCain didn't originally preach wind energy, he has migrated towards that position. For his part, Senator Obama has changed his position on Clean Coal and Nuclear Energy. But for us to be able to capitalize on those technologies would require a massive change in their certification process, as right now the process is so convoluted it basically eliminates any new license applications before they are submitted.

The solution would be to diversify. We should have wind energy, nuclear, clean coal, and we should drill for oil and natural gas. The candidate who most believably offers that solution would be the most desirable. To me, that would be McCain. Senator Obama is so far left in his political ideology and affiliations, it is difficult to believe that his support for anything other than renew ables is more than lip service. He mentions his support for offshore drilling, but then doesn't want to lift the current restrictions that make it almost impossible to drill anyways. I can't believe his support of nuclear and clean coal is different.