Regardless of whether there is a raging national debate on gas prices and energy policy, the issue will always have a special relevance in Colorado. We are home to some of the world's largest reserves of natural gas and oil. In fact, in Northwest Colorado alone we have more than triple the amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has in total. The development of domestic energy is more than just a slogan for Coloradans. Often it means a paycheck and food on the table.
While politicians might be able to spill their 'fossil fuels are evil' nonsense in San Francisco (& Boulder), a significant amount of Coloradans see through that sloganeering and the nonsensical solutions that often accompany it. One prime example of a nonsensical solution is President Obama's announcement yesterday that he is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of the political backlash to high gas prices.
Heretofore, Obama had done not a damn thing to lower gas prices. In fact, he had done just the opposite, with oil and gas leases on federal land down 45% since Obama took office. No wonder Obama's approval rating on gas prices is a lowly 34% in the latest AP poll.
Rather than offer real solutions that would affect gas prices, Obama pulls this transparently political ploy and expects people will buy it as a real solution. You can't find one economist out there who will tell you that it will do a damn thing for long term gas prices. It's a joke and a complete misuse of the reserve. The reserve is there for times of national crisis and emergencies, not when the President is feeling the political heat from a poor energy policy.
Let's look back at what Obama said about tapping the reserve as a Senator:
"…we shouldn’t be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices."
And what he said as a candidate:
"…the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency."
So when Obama was being honest, and his political hide was not on the line, he acknowledges how inappropriate and ineffective his latest move is in reality. Funny how a little political pressure changes his whole philosophy on the issue.
As the lead sponsor on legislation that would actually make a dent in gas prices and energy independence, and create 50,000 jobs, Congressman Cory Gardner was none-too-pleased with Obama's half-assed attempt at a solution, saying:
"Now is not the time for short term political fixes to long term energy problems. If President Obama was serious about weaning ourselves off of Middle East oil, he would support drilling in Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf, which can produce in one month what the President is proposing we deplete from our emergency reserves.”
Seeing as Gardner's legislation would allow for more than 10 times the amount of oil every year than Obama is releasing from the reserves, he has a good point. That's the problem with Democrats and energy policy. They don't actually solve the problem. They sloganeer about green energy, and make things up.
Take this fact-challenged tirade from state Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora):
“Right now we’re spending more for fossil fuels in terms of subsidies than with renewable,” said Carroll. “The rebates and incentives out there for renewable energy sources is dwarfed by the incentives currently in place for fossil fuels."
That kind of untrue bloviation might work at a Move-On.org conference, but it doesn't cut it with people who look at the numbers.
Let's look at what the government reports it actually spends on subsidies, and not some state Senator who has no idea what she is talking about. The last report by the Department of Energy on this was released in 2008. Of course, since Obama took office renewable energy subsidies have only increased, but it's striking to look at what "oilman" George Bush gave the renewable energy industry.
Morgan Carroll — we suggest you get a pen and write this down.
- Natural gas/Petroleum liquids — $0.25 per megawatt hour
- Coal — $0.44 per megawatt hour
- Nuclear — $1.59 per megawatt hour
- Wind — $23.37 per megawatt hour
- Solar — $24.34 per megawatt hour
The false promise of renewables as an economically viable energy resource has shown itself in Colorado as well. Journalists not willing to be suckered by the Green Machine have done great reporting on it. For example, Todd Shepherd through open records requests found out the solar panels at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science wouldn't pay themselves off until 2118. Problem is, solar panels only have a life expectancy of 20-25 years.
Energy policy can't be developed with political ploys and false facts. It's time for a serious discussion of energy policy in this country — one based in facts and reality, not the Green Machine's dreams.
Is $3.237 billion less than $1.122 billion? Well, that’s what this post is trying to argue.
If one gives the DOE report referenced in this post an honest look, you’ll see that in 2008 the U.S. spent a total of $3.237 billion on fossil fuel subsidies and $1.267 billion on nuclear energy subsidies for a total of $4,504 billion. The U.S. spent $1.122 billion on renewable energy.
That means that 80% of U.S. energy subsidies went to fossil fuels and nuclear energy (58% and 23%, respectively)and 20% went to renewable energy.
Where I come from, $3.237 billion is larger than $1.122 billion. That means when Sen. Carroll said, “Right now we’re spending more for fossil fuels in terms of subsidies than with renewable,” at least in 2008, she was right.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that. Let me try to explain it to you with an example you might understand:
Family A has 10 kids and gives them 2 dollars each for allowance. Family B has 2 kids and gives them 5 dollars each. In this example you’d complain the kids in family A get more allowance, missing the essential truth entirely.
Solar and wind just don’t create enough energy to get the highest total, but they get over 100 times as much subsidy as oil or gas for each unit of energy produced.
I’m a fan of renewables, even worked for a solar company once. But they’re living in la-la land of enormous subsidies and technology a long way from being able to compete on fair footing with other forms of energy.
If this doesn’t make it sink in, it might be time you start thinking about repeating the 7th grade.
Looking at the DOE report, the math is rather simple.
Solar generated 1 million megawatt hours and got subsidies of $24.34 per megawatt hour. Coal generated 1.946 billion megawatt hours and got subsidies of $0.44 per megawatt hour.
What is the spoiled and subsidized energy source?
How are liberals supposed to be trusted on school reform if they can’t even understand basic math?
that could be produced daily from Alaska, or the same amount Obama just released from the Strategic Oil Reserves (on a daily basis). It seems reckless to not tap available resources instead of listening to the doomsday enviros.
But here at home, we can only hope someone (i.e. Hick) has the foresight to see the value of ramping up natural gas production.
I didn’t mention this because I didn’t want to come across beating up on non-renewable energy, but why not yell and scream about the number one subsidized form of energy, no matter how you look at it, refined coal.
It weighs in as the largest total cost ($2.256 billion) and the largest per-unit cost ($29.81 per unit).
If the Peak were really being honest, or if they had any intellectual integrity, they would have included refined coal in their list. This omission is a black mark on their argument. It wasn’t included because it shatters their argument.
If we want to develop new, better technology, we must invest in it. That’s what I see in the DOE numbers. Yet, I also see us shelling out billions of dollars to old energy. I’m left asking why.
I have to admit I had no idea what “refined coal” was when I first saw it mentioned. Apparently it’s a version of the misnomer “clean coal.” It’s a greenie invention that reduces emissions from coal. And according to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know) a company in Colorado is the biggest producer of it.
It’s not a raw energy source like natural gas or oil, or even regular coal. I wouldn’t support the subsidies for it.
I’d rather we have none for any energy source. If we stopped all subsidies the solar and wind industries would collapse virtually overnight.
If we’re going to have subsidies we might as well at least send some of that money to industries that actually power homes and cars and create real jobs.
I also see a big difference between funding research and funding projects. I’m okay with giving money to labs to come up with more efficient solar panels, but I’m not okay with giving millions of dollars of taxpayer money to a company that is building solar panels. I see a big difference there.