We can't drill our way out of $4/gallon gasoline. Anyone with an elementary school level understanding of math and economics can figure this out.
The statistics don't lie:
Total world oil production: 82,532,000 barrels/day (2005)
U.S. petroleum consumption: 20,687,000 barrels/day (2007)
U.S. crude oil production: 5,102,000 barrels/day (2006)
U.S. petroleum exports: 1,317,000 barrels/day (2006)
See http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics
Projected peak ANWR oil output: 1,595,000 barrels/day (ten years after start of drilling)
See http://tonto.eia.doe.gov
Let us assume that the oil coming out of ANWR will go directly towards our consumption and that it will somehow, miraculously, be free. This 1,595,000 barrels/day represents 7.7% of our needed oil, so if it were free it would reduce the cost of $4/gallon gas to $3.69/gallon. Ouch.
But the ANWR oil won't be free and it won't go directly towards our consumption (did you notice how the U.S. exports petroleum?). The ANWR oil will go directly into the world market, where it will increase the world oil supply by 1.93%. Care to take a guess as to what a 2% increase in oil supply will do to gas costs here at home?
4 comments:
Agreed. We need to channel efforts into improving public transit and making alternate energy (wind and solar) viable options. 21st. century problems cannot be addressed with 20th. century "solutions".
Additionally, the current oil trading market looks much like the California "free trade" energy market of a few years ago. (The one that was determined to be illegal and for which Enron and others still owe the state vast sums of money!) Oil companies are reaping HUGE profits while directly influencing the hyperactive future's market leading to artificially high oil prices.... Nice.
All that aside, I'm actually in favor of high oil prices. In fact, I would like to carbon "penalty" taxes imposed to make the current prices even higher. The sooner we can ween ourselves off our addiction to oil, the better!
Brendan, you fail to mention what is probably the most viable replacement for coal and oil energy production: nuclear power. We should build the next generation of nuclear power plants. We also need to start reprocessing our nuclear "waste". More than 90% of nuclear reactor "waste" by weight could be reprocessed to burn in next generation reactors. The remaining radioactive waste would have a half life of under one hundred years.
Carter shut down the reprocessing plants because a byproduct of the reprocessing is plutonium and he was afraid of the nuclear weapons risk of making that much plutonium. The next generation of nuclear power plants could burn this plutonium. For that matter, we could start pulling plutonium out of warheads to burn.
Nuclear power, when done right, is just about the most environmentally friendly energy source imaginable.
I can't comment on nuclear energy, but am in favor of anything that gets us off oil. If Makani Power's projections are correct, they can produce electricity for about a tenth the cost of coal:
http://www.makanipower.com/
and it's only one of several companies being funded by Google's RElessthanC:
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/
Oil supplies will soon dwindle to the point where it won't be economically feasible as a commodity fuel source. I just hope that happens sooner, rather than later.
O.K., so McCain is actually against drilling in ANWR. He does support opening up drilling off-shore, but does not go so far as to offer this as a "solution". I read today that he is pushing for 100 new nuclear power plants.
He doesn't state anything about recycling nuclear waste, however.
He also wants 2 billion a year in R&D for clean coal technology. This seems like a boondoggle to me.
In general, it looks like he is taking steps in the right direction, but still lacks a coherent, realistic, and feasible energy policy.
Post a Comment