Investor's Business Daily, May 14th, 2007
Energy: President Bush outlined a plan Monday to cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. His goal is to cut use of imported oil 20% in 10 years. But without a comprehensive approach, we'll never get there.
Speaking from the Rose Garden, Bush made note of several energy-saving initiatives that have been implemented by his administration. They include $12 billion spent by the federal government since he took office to develop alternative fuel sources.
So far, however, nothing has come of that effort. Which is not to say something won't in the future. But who knows? Given the government's record, though, it wouldn't surprise us if the research came up empty.
Then why not also focus on sources we know will provide the energy to drive our ever-growing economy? We're talking, of course, about drilling for oil both in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts. We're also talking about more nuclear power, a remarkably clean, cheap, reliable and safe source or energy.
These sources cannot be left out of any serious proposal to make us less dependent on foreign oil.
ANWR and the outer continental shelf are rich with crude. Just a tiny 2,000-acre tract in the 19 million acres of ANWR holds at least 10 billion barrels of oil and possibly as much as 16 billion. From that, according to former Interior Secretary Gail Norton, we could be extracting about 1.4 million barrels a day. That would put a 13% dent in our imports.
An even bigger supply lies just off the coast of the lower 48 states. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, an additional 85.8 billion barrels of heretofore unknown reserves can be recovered from the outer continental shelf -- 3 1/2 times our current proved reserves.
All told, 131 billion barrels of oil and more than 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sit within our own boundaries, reports the American Petroleum Institute. Like low-hanging fruit, it's just waiting to be picked.
Multi-point plans from the executive office play well with the public, but doesn't the administration have the duty to push the Democratic Congress hard so that these sources can be placed on line as soon as possible?
The White House also should be taking the argument for increased nuclear power to Congress and the public. Atomic energy now provides nearly 20% of our electricity needs, but that's far less than what it could be delivering. Nuclear power accounts for about 80% of France's electricity, 55% of Belgium's, half of Sweden's and 40% of Switzerland's and South Korea's. Why are we behind?
Atomic energy makes sense. It is efficient. It takes only 0.0007 of a pound of uranium in a commercial reactor to burn a 100-watt light bulb for one year. That same bulb would require 876 pounds of coal or 508 pounds of oil to get the same results, the Nuclear Energy Institute says.
And it is clean. There are no harmful emissions created when nuclear material produces power. Unlike plants fueled by fossil fuels, nuclear plants don't blow smoke when making electricity.
To their credit, some environmentalists have come around to conceding that atomic energy is clean and support, for environmental reasons, the development of more U.S. plants.
But resistance remains. Much of the blame for the weak effort in the U.S. to take advantage of nuclear power should be placed on eco-Luddites still gripped by a paralyzing fear of nuclear power.
None of them, however, can point 15 a single death in any of those countries that resulted from a nuclear power accident. Yes, 47 died in the former Soviet Union in the 1986 Chernobyl incident. But that was a product of wretched Soviet engineering, not proof that nuclear power is by its nature dangerous.
"When it comes to energy and the environment," the president said Monday, "the American people expect common sense."
But with gasoline at record highs, and with enemies threatening us with energy blackmail, shouldn't they also should expect a all-out approach in dealing with our energy needs? Shouldn't every source be tapped, not just the trendy ones that pass muster with the left?
In other words, isn't this a golden opportunity for our leaders in Washington to get all the options on the table and strike a deal that will free us from the dependence that has plagued us for so long?
