If I owned the Sun

Here's a Blathering from Jim Baumer regarding the energy policy in Nova Scotia (and here's the original link).

The gist of this article is that Nova Scotia’s energy policy was based upon assumptions of plentiful natural gas off Sable Island, which now appear to have been vastly overstated. Original estimates were that the Sable Island reserves totaled 3.6 trillion cubic feet. This estimate has been downgraded three consecutive years, with the current estimate being 1.35 trillion cubic feet – a 62.5% decrease. Based on this decrease (which I personally assume will continue to decrease), the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Think-tank issued a report recommending changes in the Nova Scotia provincial energy policy. These changes would focus on (drum roll please) conservation efforts and renewable energy sources.

Brilliant idea! Let the US government know, too!

Reading this article has me asking - once again – why the world’s energy policies are so focused on fossil fuels. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there’s a humongo ball of Hydrogen burning a scant 93 million miles away. Every day this ball of fire provides – free of charge! – sufficient energy to provide for much of the world’s power needs. Furthermore, technology exists today that can convert this raw source of energy into usable electricity. But instead of attempting to maximize the utility of sunlight (which, did I mention this?, is free), we continue to look for more places to dig and drill to extract coal, oil and gas from the earth.

Critics of solar power like to point out that converting existing infrastructure to alternative fuel sources is an expensive proposition. And it is. However, drilling a hole in the ocean floor in the North Atlantic and venturing further afield to find new sources (e.g. above the Arctic Circle) is also expensive. Furthermore, sunlight is abundant and will be available for billions of years to come. Once we make the investment in the technology to collect sunlight, the energy will be there forever. With fossil fuels, even when we get the equipment in place to collect the fuel, we really don’t know how much of it we will be able to extract from the source, however we do know that the source will eventually run out.

While technology is improving, solar power isn’t efficient enough to handle all of our energy needs on its own. Certainly most industrial applications draw more electricity than any practical solar implementation can provide. On the other hand, most homes could have most (if not all) of their electricity needs fulfilled with solar power. Increasing the demand for solar power would increase the incentive for manufacturers to improve the technology to get an edge in the marketplace. This effort would significantly reduce the need for fossil fuels, meaning our existing sources would last much longer than they will at today’s depletion rates. Which means that we have less incentive to harm wildlife breeding grounds in Alaska in order to run our plasma TV’s.

It seems like such a no-brainer that one might ask, why aren't we making every effort to maximize the utilization of renewable energy?

And the answer is, of course, "because nobody owns the sun." Government works to satisfy the needs of those who fund campaigns – the Kings of Industry. Because the cost is such a barrier for most people to install solar panels on their homes, the solar power industry doesn’t have the same kind of money to send to the politicians that the oil, gas and coal industries do. And because the oil, gas and coal manufacturers don’t benefit from the use of solar power, there is little incentive for the politicians to make policy to develop the solar industry. And because nobody owns the sun, nobody is going to get rich on its continued production of electricity.

If I owned the sun, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be spending all kinds of money to make sure that my product was used in as many homes and businesses as possible. I would help fund every campaign within my legal power to do so. I would be saving the environment, and I would be getting rich beyond my wildest imagination. I wish that I owned the sun, because I would enjoy both of those outcomes.

But I don’t own the sun, and nobody else does either. What we need then is for people who already have a lot of money to invest in solar technology (and other renewable resources) and in political campaigns. Imagine, for example, that instead of spending money trying to prove that drilling for, refining and burning oil isn’t bad for the environment, a company like ExxonMobil were to invest in a facility that manufactures photovoltaic (PV) cells. Suddenly you have a company with a lot of lobbying clout, with a material financial interest in the expansion of solar technology. Badda bing! Instant government incentives for the solar industry. As an added bonus, they would have a product to sell once the oil fields dry up.

Of course, we’re probably not close enough to the end of the oil supplies that the big oil companies to concern themselves with what to do after it’s all gone. There are various models pointing to when this will happen, but it certainly will happen. I’ll refer you back to Jim Baumer, who writes fairly regularly about Peak Oil theories (and at Words Matter, too). I encourage you to also follow some of his interesting links. It will be the wise business person who will be poised to take advantage of the need to move from fossil fuels, ready with PV cells, wind turbines, biodiesel production and more. I’d like to see the social conscience of the United States and the world change such that the incentive to change happens sooner rather than later. But ultimately it will be dollar signs that create this change in the collective conscience. If you and I don’t create the demand for renewable power today, we risk the well-being of the Earth and its inhabitants.

MTBE in the Energy Bill

The House and Senate are currently working on a "compromise" bill that will eliminate the differences between the House and Senate versions passed earlier this year. A major issue deals with the gasoline additive MTBE. The House of Representatives passed its version including a provision protecting Oil producers from liability lawsuits related to pollution caused by the additive MTBE. The Senate version contains no such protections. MTBE was originally added to gasoline in 1979, replacing lead to reduce engine "knocking" and allow engines to run more efficiently. The problem with MTBE is that it has escaped from underground storage tanks and contaminated water supplies in at least 29 states, and it is considered a likely carcinogen.

The compromise bill promises to be a contentious one, though Senate members indicate that the bill will not pass with the MTBE protection. The issue in the House, according to the National Review (an unlikely reference for me, but there you go), is that MTBE manufacturers shouldn’t be held liable for the cleanup because

a) They did not install the leaky storage tanks, and
b) MTBE usage increased due to Congressional mandates in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Both of these points ignore the fact that the producers had to know that MTBE is a pollutant and a danger to the public waterways, had to know that some gasoline storage tanks might just leak some day, and had to know that there were other (less dangerous/more expensive) oxygenates available to comply with the 1990 Act. They also ignore the fact that the MTBE producers earned massive profits by introducing a dangerous product to the enviornment. Why should they be allowed all of the profits while somebody else cleans up the unfortunate side effects of their product? As I write in the Air Blog's sister post to this one, civic responsibilty should not be an afterthought in the pursuit of profits. Let's not allow it to be.

I encourage everybody to contact their Congresspeople, particularly those in the House of Representatives, in support of deleting the MTBE non-liability provisions. While you're add it, see if you can kill the drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, too. It's bad enough that the bill will likely pass with further subsidies to environmentally-unfriendly energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear), minimal support for sustainable energy industries, and hardly a mention of conservation; protecting known polluters from facing the consequences of thier actions is a slap in the face to us all. MTBE should be outlawed altogether, allowing its use to continue with no liability when it causes harm is unfathomable.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Joe's Land Blog. This is the latest installment in the growing family of Joe's Blogs, which already includes Joe's SeaBlog, an indispensable resource for fans of the AA Portland Sea Dogs baseball team, and Joe's Air Blog, which I use to to express what's on my mind (largely political in nature), review films and books, and compose essays and other writing excercises. Joe's Land Blog is an offshoot of the Air Blog, in which I plan to focus on the political arena that is dearest to my heart, the environment.

I am particularly interested in how our petroleum-based society impacts the environment of the US, and in exploring how we might use renewable/sustainable/"clean" energy sources to reduce our petroleum dependance. I am further interested in land protection and preservation efforts that result in the preservation of plant and animal species as well as the natural beauty of the United States. And, just to mix things up a little bit, I'll throw in the occasional post about what's happening in my home gardens, what I've learned, and what remains a mystery about the plants around my house. I'm glad you came by, and I hope to make things interesting enough to get you to visit again and again.