Awareness of Climate Change Grows

National awareness of climate change issues and global warming is growing. The current debate on energy policy is one manifestation of this awareness. Most voters in this country support opening up more area for off-shore drilling. This will be the key focus of legislation when congress gets back from its summer recess. Some proponents of more energy development want to develop all energy sources at the lowest possible cost. Some opponents want to stop fossil fuel development and only develop renewable energy sources. I believe the majority will form a consensus that will create a balance of developing some fossil fuel development now, coupled with government incentives to more rapidly develop renewable energy supplies. The government revenue from expanded off-shore drilling can provide the funds for renewable energy development.

As I have pointed out before, we should be developing our high EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) fossil fuels which have the smallest carbon emissions for the energy delivered. This includes natural gas and light crude oil. We should not invest huge sums in low EROEI fuel sources like oil shale, heavy oil, or tar sands. Drilling off-shore makes use of technology that has already been developed.

New investment should be made in clean energy like solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, ocean power sources. We also need to make large investments in infrastructure. Bill Clinton had some interesting comments at an energy summit in Las Vegas on developing renewable energy.
Clinton: US should demonstrate energy solutions

He suggested that we should pick several locations to create “energy independent states”. The idea is to replace all imported energy with locally produced renewable energy. "We have got to convince people this can be done and it would be good economics" Clinton said. He suggested Puerto Rico would be a prime candidate for energy independence because it imports most of its power at a high cost to the people. Nations including Rwanda, Papa New Guinea or one of the Caribbean nations would be appropriate. Places that have low power demand and are sunny and windy.

Clinton also called for an overhaul of the nation’s electricity grid. He noted that this undertaking could cost as much as a trillion dollars. I think Bill Clinton is reflecting the changing consensus of thought in America. We need to do things like improve our transmission grid. We have a lot of wind power in the middle of the country, but to make wind power work we need to transmit this power to cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. This presents a chicken and egg problem. Will industry build wind farms in areas where there are no transmission lines? Will anyone build transmission lines where there are no power sources? If the government subsidized the building of transmission lines to the middle of the country, it would facilitate private industry building the power sources. Clinton also noted the high cost, but that is over time and would amount to about $25 billion per year over 40 years.

Businesses are also getting into doing something about climate change. Investors are increasingly supporting climate change proposals at private companies. There may be opportunities for the government to facilitate the shift to clean energy. Getting leverage on a small government investment could cause large contributions from private companies.

Group says climate resolutions increase

The government may also find ways to cut costs for clean energy producers. Developing a licensing protocol for the rapid construction of new nuclear plants would be an example. George Bush started working on a new licensing protocol for nuclear plants at the start of his presidency. The last I heard (reader comments on current status appreciated) he was looking for having this done by 2011. That is 10 years! We put a man on the moon in 8 years and developed the atom bomb in 3 years. You would think we could go a little faster on developing a licensing protocol.