NoaIzumiSaving Energy? That’s just “loopy”!
May 29th 2009 00:53
Two rather odd pieces from the Investor’s Business Daily in today’s issue
Chu’s Whitewash
“White roofs would also lower energy use in air-conditioned structures with dark roofs that absorb heat.
Doesn't America's energy czar have better things to do than throw out loopy ideas about solving a problem that doesn't exist?”
Electricity costs don't exist? Or is it air conditioners? They acknowledge that painting roofs white would help lower energy use (and thus costs), aiding the bottom line of thousands of businesses, and in the next breath, call it a loopy idea because it would also slow global warming (whether it's anthropogenic or not.).
“What we do know, however, is that this country has plenty of oil and coal, cheap sources that can keep the nation moving ahead for decades.”
Arguably true for electricity, which is generated mostly by coal (which is dirty, but we have plenty of it), and natural gas and nuclear (both of which could be expanded), but not true for energy as a whole.
As far as oil is concerned, the question is not how much you have (although proven oil reserves in the US wouldn’t last as long as IBD believes), but how fast you can get it out. As discussed on this blog before, even if everything (off-shore areas, ANWR, natural parks) was opened up to drilling, the most we’d get is an additional 3 or 4 million barrels a day. We import 12 million barrels a day, most of which goes to the transportation sector.
Really Long Link
Even if the United States were to drill everywhere, and replace oil with natural gas or nuclear for electricity generation (which sounds to be at least as massive an undertaking as painting roofs), the US would still be dependent on foreign oil to the tune of several million barrels a day. Even if you believe that AGW is a crock and energy independence should be our top priority by any means necessary, you can’t afford to dismiss any option.
Just ask the Chinese.
Is China as Suicidal as We Are?
The answer to that would appear to be: yes. IBD has lately been making a big deal over the Waxman-Mackey bill that would increase CAFÉ standards for American cars. It might surprise them to know that China currently produces cars with better MPG ratings than ours, and will continue to do so even if the proposal passes (although, to be fair, part of that is due to China’s more lax pollution regulations).
Really Long Link
China’s official reason for the policy? Not to stop global warming or to save the Earth, but for energy security and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
(And IBD acknowledges that pollution from China is a problem. Well, guys, lower gas use means fewer pollution products from gas combustion. Or does that make too much sense?)
In addition, China is a world leader in the production of renewable energy, thanks in part to billions of dollars worth of government investment.
Really Long Link
I must say, I’m a little confused. I thought the folks at IBD thought that lower costs and increased energy security were good things. Apparently not, unless it’s done their way. That’s just “loopy.”
Update: IBD isn't the only one to take the "silly" tack:
Really Long Link
And found a couple of links on the kind of energy savings the program can yield:
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Chu’s Whitewash
“White roofs would also lower energy use in air-conditioned structures with dark roofs that absorb heat.
Doesn't America's energy czar have better things to do than throw out loopy ideas about solving a problem that doesn't exist?”
Electricity costs don't exist? Or is it air conditioners? They acknowledge that painting roofs white would help lower energy use (and thus costs), aiding the bottom line of thousands of businesses, and in the next breath, call it a loopy idea because it would also slow global warming (whether it's anthropogenic or not.).
“What we do know, however, is that this country has plenty of oil and coal, cheap sources that can keep the nation moving ahead for decades.”
Arguably true for electricity, which is generated mostly by coal (which is dirty, but we have plenty of it), and natural gas and nuclear (both of which could be expanded), but not true for energy as a whole.
As far as oil is concerned, the question is not how much you have (although proven oil reserves in the US wouldn’t last as long as IBD believes), but how fast you can get it out. As discussed on this blog before, even if everything (off-shore areas, ANWR, natural parks) was opened up to drilling, the most we’d get is an additional 3 or 4 million barrels a day. We import 12 million barrels a day, most of which goes to the transportation sector.
Really Long Link
Even if the United States were to drill everywhere, and replace oil with natural gas or nuclear for electricity generation (which sounds to be at least as massive an undertaking as painting roofs), the US would still be dependent on foreign oil to the tune of several million barrels a day. Even if you believe that AGW is a crock and energy independence should be our top priority by any means necessary, you can’t afford to dismiss any option.
Just ask the Chinese.
Is China as Suicidal as We Are?
The answer to that would appear to be: yes. IBD has lately been making a big deal over the Waxman-Mackey bill that would increase CAFÉ standards for American cars. It might surprise them to know that China currently produces cars with better MPG ratings than ours, and will continue to do so even if the proposal passes (although, to be fair, part of that is due to China’s more lax pollution regulations).
Really Long Link
China’s official reason for the policy? Not to stop global warming or to save the Earth, but for energy security and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
(And IBD acknowledges that pollution from China is a problem. Well, guys, lower gas use means fewer pollution products from gas combustion. Or does that make too much sense?)
In addition, China is a world leader in the production of renewable energy, thanks in part to billions of dollars worth of government investment.
Really Long Link
I must say, I’m a little confused. I thought the folks at IBD thought that lower costs and increased energy security were good things. Apparently not, unless it’s done their way. That’s just “loopy.”
Update: IBD isn't the only one to take the "silly" tack:
Really Long Link
And found a couple of links on the kind of energy savings the program can yield:
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
| 22 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
