Roger L. Simon: The Sphinx Goes Nuclear - The United States goes braindead.

What has four legs in the morning of its life, two legs in the noon of its life and three legs in the evening of its life?

But the latest news out of Cairo - that Egypt too is now going nuclear - does seem like a bad joke.

Our government is, of course, "welcoming" this decision on the part of Mubarak & Co., whose intention, again of course, is not military but "to diversify Egypt's energy resources and preserve its oil and gas reserves for future generations."

Meanwhile, back in our country, the left and right continue to do nothing much at all about our power situation - the left mired in knee-jerk fears of nuclear energy out of outdated Hollywood movies and the right mired in equally knee-jerk opposition to government subsidy of scientific projects (hey, it got us to the moon, didn't it?).

Listen, ladies and gentlemen, drop your bourgeois ideologies, left and right, and start moving. The fight against Islamofascism is a waste of energy without new ways of obtaining energy. Don't believe me, check out this list.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Whoever the new president will be I want the new administration to create NESSA (National Energy Self Sufficiencey Agency) along the lines of NASA. An accelerated, government funded agency, not to the moon, but to energy self sufficiency. If we can get to the moon, we can power ourselves.

My dream is every house, every building, would have its own power source as well as its own heater and air conditioner. Maybe fuel cells powered by Hydrogen. Could be something like a new generation of batteries utilizing nanotechnology. Or a super breakthrough on solar power. Vehicles too.

Drilling offshore, in Alaska, and mining coal with clean coal technology would be great for now, with a strong bias toward obsoleting oil from abroad in the short term, and obsoleting oil altogether in the long term.

It's going to happen if we do it pro-actively or if we are forced into it by having our oil supplies cut off or destroyed by crazies.

"...the right mired in equally knee-jerk opposition to government subsidy of scientific projects (hey, it got us to the moon, didn't it?)."

Roger needs to talk to his buddy, Glenn Reynolds. The Instapundit believes that government is currently hindering the space program. He is a strong advocate of more involvement by those in the private sector. Large government programs sometimes work to get the ball game rolling. Eventually, however, it gets in the way of progress.

I am utterly convinced that government spending will unlikely help us become more energy independent. No, we should instead offer huge tax breaks to companies who are dedicated to this goal. Provide them with as many incentives as possible.

David is correct here. Unless your talking about mega-science that has no short term payoff and a REALLLY high entrance cost, government involvement in projects hinders way more than helps.

The moon stuff was a good example of what government can do as the entrance cost was huge and the pay off non-existent. (this doesn't count the ancillary spin offs like Tang ;^)

Government regulation (granted that this is fostered at times by industry that wants to hinder the competition or get on its own gravy train) is what's stopping most of the movement towards experimental projects.

That parenthetical is, possibly, the most important. Agri-business is pushing real hard for those Ethanol rules so their gravy train keeps on rolling. Think that their lobbyists will look favorably on clean coal or new oil drilling?

A nuclear Egypt would be a very bad thing. That country is nuts. It's another "Iran" waiting to happen once the current government falls. (And it will fall.) Might as well give nukes to the Palestinians.

I only spent a week in Cairo, but I couldn't wait to get out and go back to Beirut. If you think Lebanon is crazy, stay faaar away from Egypt.

Even the idea of civilian nuclear power is dodgy in Egypt. I rather doubt their engineers are better than Russia's, and they got Chernobyl.

Am I just having one of those farfetched science fiction moments, or is there anyone else out of sound mind who thinks they might be riding a bicycle to and from work, around ten years from now, assuming that they are one of the survivors?

I am amused how quickly some of the commenters on here illustrate point of the original post. Perhaps private industry and the government have something to contribute to energy independence.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/10/oil-is-91barrel-so-why-wont-left-let-us.html

* YOU CAN'T REPEAL THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DEMAND FOR OIL IS UP, AND SUPPLIES HAVE SIMPLY NOT KEPT PACE.

* BUT WE CAN INCREASE SUPPLIES QUICKLY - WITHOUT SENDING A SINGLE SOLITARY DIME OVERSEAS.

* ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ALLOW OIL-DRILLING OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA AND CALIFORNIA, OPEN ANWR AND BUILD NEW/CLEAN COAL-BURNING POWER PLANTS.

* AFTER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, I THINK THIS IS THE BIGGEST DOMESTIC ISSUE. THE GOP WOULD BE SMART TO USE THEM BOTH.

First, what happened to the environment when hurricane Rita wiped out dozens of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico?

There have been many material technological improvements that have reduced the risk of spills even when catastrophic events occur. Yes, there is risk, but it is a more manageable risk now then ever.

In addition, many offshore wells can be drilled beyond where they are visible from shore. Ted Kennedy can keep his view.

I own oil shares because of the insatiable demand for energy, as a hedge against geo-political insanity, as a hedge against inflation and as a hedge against the dollar.

It's about supply and demand. If oil and energy were $10 per barrel, our Islamofascist friends would be getting their camels warmed up again. We are arming the enemy by not pursuing energy independence.

The solution is multi-facted and involves oil, nuclear, hydrogen (individual, distributed power plants), and other alternative forms.

Second, a nuclear Egypt is as dangerous as any other nuclear Islamic country where the risk of having the bomb fall into the wrong hands is the greatest. There are very radical Islamic elements in Egypt.

Lastly, the idea that somehow the resolution of our energy requirements should be the purview of government is silly. Government should not be involved in the means of production. Just look around the world to see examples of why this is so - Mexico, Venezuela, Iran. The oil infrasructure in these countries is failing and technology lags. Iran can't even meet domestic gasoline demand because subsidies have crippled refining activities.

In the US, ethanol is a nice theory but in practice it is a bit of a mess. To meet the federal goverment specified quota, more corn would need to be grown than available framland permits. In addition, there is serious concern that acquifers would be seriously depleted to provide the water necessary to meet the objectives. Lastly, my understanding is that it takes more than one barrel of oil in equivalent energy to produce a barrel of ethanol. This does not sound like a good idea.

Government needs to provide the legal, regulatory and economic frameowrk that lets the private sector perform. That is part of what has made America great to begin with.

I agree with Michael Totten (once again). In any event, for the most part in strategic analysis you should try to work off of capabilities rather than intentions unless there are powerful structural forces in your favor.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a physicist, but there's nuclear and then there's nuclear. Certain nuclear reactor designs in common use don't use or produce the kind of nuclear material that can be used for bomb-building. The whole issue with Iran is that their nuclear technology IS compatible with a weapons project. If Egypt gets locked into using the non-weapons-grade technology, I'm not sure that it's really a threat at all.

The article said that they haven't been enriching uranium. That's a big link in the chain to weapons, and the article was ambiguous about whether they would be doing that now. I guess we should assume that they will be.

My understanding of the nuclear power issue is that government subsidies aren't the problem, it's the litigation and political opposition to building new power plants. Plants get locked up in delays and injunctions for years, costing gigantic amounts of money due to the legal obstructions.

In general, I'm against gov't interventionism, but I have to abandon doctrine and say that the Roosevelt approach that both parties have used for 50 years has pretty much worked. Private companies like IBM are doing some incredible basic science, but why break something that isn't broken? Even the space program (bloated, inefficient and bureaucratic as it is) has produced some incredible advances. Even a couple of the spin-off technologies more than cost-justifies the whole thing. Incidentally, the same goes for missile defense. Vannevar Bush wasn't in my party, but he was clearly right.

If you want to actually achieve energy independence instead of just another set of big bloated government programs, then the NASA model isn't what you want to emulate. During the Apollo era, NASA's unofficial motto was "waste anything but time." Eager to meet Kennedy's artifical deadline to achieve the moon landing, NASA wasted money hand over fist. They also managed to kill some people.

No, I believe a better model would be NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). It was a small and efficiently ran research & development organization charged to help develop technology that advanced American aeronautical capabilities. They were very successful using this approach.

The last thing we need to do is create yet another large government agency. Invariably, within a few years of inception, the goal of the organization becomes self-perpetuation and expansion instead of meeting the needs of the American people.

If we get viable fusion next year, it will still take decades to get off of oil. The oil industry has been built up over the course of a century, it cannot be replaced quickly. And transportation uses (gasoline, diesel) will be the hardest to replace, and that's a bit more than half the refined oil output.

Energy independence also requires we redesign the way we live. The average house size has increased greatly over the decades, along with the attendant energy costs. The suburban lifestyle is spread out, requiring the need of a car to go just about everywhere. We need to build up more and out less-perhaps build houses with three floors instead of one large single floor.

There’s a line on the tax form about contributing a dollar to political campaigns. Add one about contributing a dollar to energy research and then redistribute the cash to research companies.

Energy independence also requires we redesign the way we live. The average house size has increased greatly over the decades, along with the attendant energy costs.

Not necessarily. My wife and I bought our first home in 1986. It was built in 1968 and had a bit less than 1800 square feet of living area. Our current home was built 8 years ago. It's about twice the size of that earlier home but our utility bills are considerably less, especially when adjusted for inflation. Most newer homes are a lot more energy efficient than old homes. It isn't accurate to simply compare the sizes of two homes to determine which uses more energy.

The suburban lifestyle is spread out, requiring the need of a car to go just about everywhere. We need to build up more and out less-perhaps build houses with three floors instead of one large single floor.

While having everyone live in high density apartment buildings would be more energy efficient, a lot of us don't want to live that way. Some people love apartment buildings. More power (figuratively) to them.

Our old home was a split level while our new one is a ranch with a full basement. Again, the number of floors doesn't necessarily dictate energy consumption although it can be a factor. One reason for the popularity of single floor designs is that a lot of us are getting older and don't like stairs any more than necessary. In our old home, we were constantly having to go up and down stairs to do anything. Bad knees and stairs aren't a good combination.

That sounds like a typical Hillary Clinton "I know what's best for you." solution.

We need to restrict the individuals ability to live the type of life they want for the greater good. That about it?

If every two bit tyrant wanna be moved into a high rise as their only residence and out of their 30,000 sq ft palaces the rest of us wouldn't have to worry.

They are my dollars and I'll spend them how I see fit. Whether it's to keep warm or cool via energy use; or moving into some high rise where I can't have my work shop or my archery hobbies, that's up to me.

I did not call for government intervention anywhere in my original posting, rather I was suggesting we change our collective outlook on our lifestyle. Superbig houses on lots of land and superbig cars driving large distances has made us overly dependent on middle-east nutterdoms, and all the attendant consequences. We went to Kuwait to save the oil, which led to US troops in Saudi Arabia, which led to 9-11. They use our petro dollars to fund terrorism against us. Our politics with them is compromised. They have us by the balls.

Living more responsibly is not bowing to tyranny. It’s looking out for our own long term best interest, and yeah, that's the greater good. Sorry you can’t see that.

You did not specifically mention the gov't, but whenever someone uses "we" in that sense the implication is that there oughta be a law.

If you don't want to live a suburban life style, that's fine. But it is unrealistic to expect that the type of changes you are touting are even possible given the fact that the entire infrastructure of the country would have to change.

This is right up there with the "we should get the toops out of Iraq tomorrow!" cry. Nothing to see or hear but demogoguery.

"Unless your talking about mega-science that has no short term payoff and a REALLLY high entrance cost, government involvement in projects hinders way more than helps.

Very good point. I guess my real vision is switching to a Hydrogen economy, which I think could have really high entrance costs; and here a central source of funding, and perhaps coordination, might be needed.

1. Creating the Hydrogen. Could be from water or hydrocarbons. Needs lots of research dollars. Why not have universities in on the hunt?

2. Transportation of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen embrittlement of metals is a big hurdle. Governments have created the energy grid. Perhaps some kind of Hydrogen grid would be needed, something other than Hydrogen "tanker" trucks all over the place.

3. Converting Hydrogen to energy. Fuel cells lead the pack at the moment. More research would certainly help.

I agree that private industry is fabulous, and I also think there are times and places where a nation-wide, highly funded effort is appropriate. I see this as part of the war against the jihadis.

First let me say that I didn't notice my typo till I read it in your reply. Of course that "your" is "you're'.

Second, Gov't might have a role to play, but, until they get the hell out of the way on nuclear energy I won't believe that they mean it.

There are two ways to recover hydrogen, to your point. As I understand it the main way is via electrolysis of water.

This requires a lot of electricity that we don't really have. How to get more electricity, safely and cleanly? Nuclear is the way to go. Until I see a major push in this area I will be a cynic and assume that all the rest is just a scam to get someone rich and pass more control of the economy to the gov't. (See ethanol)

Electrolysis takes more energy to liberate the H2 form H2O than is recoverd by recombining it to make H2O.

My hope is that we can break the water atom apart using cheap energy, and recombine it to sell expensive energy: i.e perhaps cheap nuclear, or wave energy, or cheap solar in desrets, or... something that research is inventing that we haven't heard of yet.

Then, you sell the H2 at H2 stations on the road at a profit, or use it to generate electricity and sell it at higher rates than you paid to get the H2, or use it to power your home with fuel cells, etc, etc.

The economic model for this is pump-storage, where utilities pump huge quantities of water out of a lake at night to a reservoir at higher elevation, then drain that same water back down through hydroturbines during the day to generate electricity. They pump it at night at a cheap rate, and sell it during the day at a higher rate, making the whole process economically viable, even though they generate less power during the day than it takes to pump it during the night.

As to the government effectiveness, I agree it is pretty bad, but we did get the superhighway system out of it, went to the moon, built electrical grids, etc. Sometimes, the projects are just too big for private industry to be able to do it all without big brother assistance, I am afraid. Switching to a hydrogen economy just might be one of those things. What incentive does Chevron have to obsolete oil and replace it with H2?

that pumping model has been looked at for a long time. I remember in the early 70's the talk about using Sunfish pond up above the Delaware Water Gap in NJ for just such a scheme.

When they looked in detail it was an environmental disaster and not economically viable. The economics might have changed but the environmental impact won't have.

The problem with all alternative fuels is the one you mention, they are vastly more expensive in an energy sense to produce than what you get out. As soon as you get that number to a positive we'll have perpetual motion and no problems again.

Till then we have to look at the closer to 0 options that can produce energy on a large scale and the only one that is viable today in terms of energy produced and ability to harness it is nuclear. That's why I say that anyone that doesn't start an energy discussion with nuclear is not serious.

Once we have virtually unlimited, clean electric energy then we'll be able to move onto any other alternatives that show real promise.

What I would like to see are dust to dust comparisons for toxicity, cost and reliability for the life time of the new style reactors with things like largescale solar farms that produce equivalent amounts of energy.

October 29, 2007: The Sphinx Goes Nuclear - The United States goes braindead.

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post