Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the Economic Report of the President (ERP) which was released on Saturday night. Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, had a few observations about the report which were reported in the Power Line Article.
The ERP promotes the development and solar and wind power, but has no plan for developing the oil resources of the United States. Mr. Haapala points out a few problems with solar and wind as the total solution to our energy problems. Imported oil is generally used in the United States as a transportation fuel--less than one percent is used to generate electricity. This opens up a whole new world of problems and solutions--unless Americans are willing to drive electric cars, our dependence on oil as an energy source will not end. Even if we develop the technology to make good electric cars, we still have to generate the electricity to fuel them.
The article specifically states:
* It omits any discussion of the poor 120-year economic history of wind-generated electricity - erratic wind power was always rejected by consumers demanding reliable, affordable electricity.
* It omits the staggering investments China is making in traditional sources for generating electricity. The EPR emphasizes China's development of solar and wind but ignores massive investments in nuclear, coal, and hydro. This omission leads to the false assertion that the US is in a race with China for wind and solar power.
* It omits any rigorous economic discussion of the difference between government expenditures and government investment. Expenditures are exactly that, they may create jobs and prosperity for a few, but not for the general public. Successful investments create general prosperity yielding far more to the general public than the cost. Replacing coal plants which reliably generate affordable electricity with wind farms or solar plants that unreliably generate more expensive electricity is an expenditure, not an investment. Such an action is no more an investment than replacing the reliable family car with an exotic, expensive, high-maintenance sports car. It may create jobs for some but at the expense of the family.
* It omits any discussion of an existing technology that can economically store electricity on an industrial scale. Without one, spending heavily on solar or wind is speculation.
In short, the EPR does not provide a path to a prosperous energy future, but a path to a boxed canyon that will make the US uncompetitive in the world markets.
There may someday be a technology that will completely wean the American economy from fossil fuel, but we are not there yet. Government spending will not help us get there any sooner--the solution is in the creativity and ingenuity of the American people. The government's role is to make sure the American people have the freedom to be creative.
Leave a comment