Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
Gristmill

'ANWR, nukes, more ethanol, new technology, blah, blah, blah'

Bush's energy/food strategy unsurprisingly underwhelming

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 5:49 AM on 30 Apr 2008

Goofy BushBush had a press conference yesterday morning to blame Congress for soaring energy and food prices: "Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all [Americans] are getting is delay."

What does non-delayer Bush propose? Well, of course, new technology -- what else is new old? Heck, he even said the long-term answer was hydrogen. (Not!)

Oh, but he did offer some "short-term" solutions. His answer to rising electricity prices: Nukes!

As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power.

[Pause for laughter]

Bush seems unaware of the soaring prices for nukes (see "Power plants' costs double since 2000"). I am preparing a major analysis on this topic. Suffice it to say for now that a new nuclear power plant would probably not be able to deliver power substantially below $0.15 a kilowatt-hour (not counting transmission and distribution costs)! Nuclear power is about the last form of electricity you would turn to if you care about price -- or if you cared about delivering power in a hurry, for that matter.

High oil prices? That's any easy one. It's Congress' fault for not opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, says the president.

Who cares that it ANWR would not deliver its oil for a decade? Who cares that its new supply would be soaked up by growing global demand in under one year? (I'd ask who cares about greenhouse-gas emissions, but we know that doesn't include the president.)

Bush himself said, "One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand." But he's got no proposals for reducing demand. In fact, he reiterated his refusal to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve some 67,000 barrels a day -- a pointless contribution to global demand.

Finally, Bush was asked about the connection between high corn prices and his ethanol policy.

Reporter: The World Bank says about 85 percent of the increase in corn price since 2002 is due to biofuel -- increased demand for biofuels. And your Secretary of State said that -- indicated yesterday that she thought that might be part of the problem. Do you agree with that? And what can the United States do -- what more can the United States do to help make food more affordable around the world?

The president: Actually, I have a little different take: I thought it was 85 percent of the world's food prices are caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices -- just the cost of growing product -- and that 15 percent has been caused by ethanol, the arrival of ethanol.

By the way, the high price of gasoline is going to spur more investment in ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. And the truth of the matter is it's in our national interests that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us.

I can't find the 85 percent figure online (please post if you do). The closest I can find is World Bank President Robert Zoellick saying on NPR: "Biofuels is no doubt a significant contributor. It is clearly the case that programs in Europe and the United States that have increased biofuel production have contributed to the added demand for food."

In any case, Bush's ethanol policy is so flawed that even the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry, wants to cut the mandate in half -- and I could not agree more (see my Marketplace interview or "Let them eat biofuels!")

When President Bush says "the truth of the matter," you know it's time to put your hand on your wallet.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Beating a Dead Drum (Barrel)


Oil is kaput.

The exchanges are trying to squeeze every last cent out of it before the plunge comes.

We've got ethanol at $1 a gallon and it doesn't use corn:

http://www.coskata.com/

We've got solar at 5 cents a kwh:

http://www.sunrgi.com/index.html

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

Grand compromise?

  I've long advocated for a grand compromise. Horse trading off ANWR and nukes for an aggressive program of renewables and conservation. I think this might help to deflect some of the prevailing myths, such as "if only the liberals would get out the way and let us drill". The small energy wedges provided would marginally help in the medium term (10-25years).

   We do need some robust low carbon baseline power, to compliment the time variable renewables component. That is where Nuclear might contribute. Why are Nuclear costs skyrocketing? Is it because of new regulatory burdens? Or is it caused by an increase in the price of the commodities needed for construction? If solar and wind become a large part of our future supply, I would anticipate a reversal of the current cost structure; peak power expensive, baseline(night) cheap, becomes cheap daytime power, but expensive nighttime power. This would allow relatively more expensive baseline generation to be economic.

Huh?

Why do we need to sacrifice ANWR to "deflect some prevailing myths"?  

There are already plenty of FACTS out there that SHOULD be enough to deflect myths: That we could save more oil than ANWR will ever produce by boosting auto efficiencies by a mere 2 mpg.  That at peak production ANWR would reduce our foreign imported oil from about 70% to a miniscule 66%.  That once ANWR is exhausted, we'll be right back where we started -- only worse. (more people, more global warming, less oil left, yet still reliant on the same old unsustainable happy-motoring model that got us here in the first place).

Of course I know the answer.  People will hold on to their myths no matter how much reality you throw at them.  Look at how many people (in the U.S.) believe the earth is 10,000 years old.  Look at how many people (in the U.S.) believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 (even though the Bush Administration has itself said otherwise).  

Sigh.  People love to cling to their myths.  After ANWR is despoiled, and after all the ANWR oil is gone, a new myth will arise to take its place.  It will be something like "Jesus will come tomorrow to save us from this globally-warmed mess and mass starvation that we have created here on earth".

Any you will be labeled an anti-patriot if you question that myth.

Do I sound cynical?  My county's persistent inability to take even the simplest, most obvious political steps forward (e.g., what on God's green earth was Congress thinking when they failed to extend the tax credits for wind power!) has pretty much exhausted my optimism.  I am strapping myself in for a long, bumpy, unpleasant ride ...

Actually

The 15% figure is an average...
It's 10% from the FAO, and 30% from the World Bank.

Also According to him, increasing global oil demand by a fraction of 1%, will not significantly increase the market price of oil.

On the flipside, increasing global oil supplies by a fraction of 1%, will significantly decrease the market price of oil.

_____

He was of course referring to filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Versus Drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Preserve.

re: grand compromise

Big Tom, your proposal is full of flaws.  Environmental groups couldn't concede on nuclear power if they wanted to.  More importantly, their concession wouldnt mean much anyway: it's not environmental groups who have stopped nuclear plants.  It's Wall Street investors.  As for "trading away" the Arctic Refuge, again, no one has the ability to do that.  And I'd no more trade the Refuge than trade the redwoods.  Congress needs to fund renewables and efficiency because they're good public policy.

Moron



In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Ooo ooo eee eee ahh ahh

Nice job voting Bush voters.  Next time?  Please consider voting for a human candidate.  Just a suggestion.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks