Monday, April 23, 2007
The answer isn't oil, either
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Diana Christopulos
Christopulos, of Salem, is coordinator of the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition.
Retired petroleum engineer Michael Kasnick ("The answer isn't ethanol," April 5) seems to think the best way to address possible gas shortages is to provide more sweetheart deals to the oil companies, what he calls "increase[d] access to our domestic oil and gas resources." Since oil companies are free to drill on private land at any time, he can only be referring to lands owned by the public. Perhaps he missed the December 2006 report from our own Interior Department -- withheld for more than a year -- showing that:
n Massive subsidies to oil companies for drilling in public waters are yielding almost no results
n Even if they did succeed, these efforts would produce oil costing approximately $80 per barrel.
Or perhaps he is upset with the new Congress as it works to rescind billions of dollars in tax breaks and royalty waivers for a petroleum industry that is logging record profits.
The true price of oil is much higher than what we pay at the pump. The protection of foreign oil sources costs much more than money, and it is exceedingly unlikely that we have enough petroleum reserves in the United States to become anything near energy-independent using oil. Most experts believe that we will reach "peak oil" -- the time when more than half of all the oil in the world has been used -- within the next decade or two.
Oil presents other problems. The burning of oil is a major contributor to global warming, which is already affecting every continent on Earth. Diesel fuel releases fine particles that are a major health hazard to anyone with breathing problems, especially children and the elderly. Oil and gas are highly toxic and affect the health of those who work around them.
Instead of subsidizing this dinosaur-based industry, why not seek 21st-century solutions for energy independence? There is no single answer, but there are many better ones. Here are a few:
n Higher fuel efficiency standards. American cars have the lowest fuel efficiency standards in the developed world -- by far. Even China has substantially higher standards. More efficient cars would mean less gasoline used and would probably improve the competitiveness of our automakers worldwide (despite their kicking and screaming).
n Cellulosic ethanol. Unlike corn or sugar ethanol, cellulosic can be made from waste products and switchgrass, and it produces more energy than corn ethanol. This promising source is already being purchased by our military and should be available commercially within a few years.
n Biodiesel. Already in use by Salem and Roanoke, biodiesel blends made from Virginia soybeans are a cleaner, locally produced alternative for those with diesel engines.
n Hybrid cars. Japanese automakers are surging ahead of our own producers on the strength of vehicles that combine gasoline and battery power. Surely we can do better.
n Plug-in hybrid cars. These vehicles -- still not generally available -- use the electricity grid to increase their battery time. They reduce carbon dioxide emissions and cut refueling costs in half.
n RIDE Solutions. This local Roanoke Valley program helps people organize carpools instead of commuting alone.
n Bicycles and walking. OK, it is old-fashioned. But using human-power is healthier and often more enjoyable than sitting in a car, especially in a beautiful place like the Roanoke Valley.
