Extremists hinder energy independence
There are 4 comments for this page [ View ]Monday, April 14, 2008
By JAMES V. HANSEN
Guest commentary
Multiple use of the public lands has been a standard since the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were founded. There are various designations of the land. Example: wilderness, recreation areas, places for off-road vehicles, wild and scenic rivers, etc.
Many laws have been passed to dictate how these lands will be used: The 1872 Mining Law, the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Wild Horse and Burro Act, the NEPA Act, the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act, the Wild Scenic Rivers Act, etc. These laws are administered by various federal agencies such as the Forest Service, the BLM, Department of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service and, in many cases, the administration of the laws are coordinated with the states.
America is a country that lives on energy, whether it is the old stand-bys of fossil fuel, coal and natural gas, or the alternative energy of solar, wind, geothermal, etc. A great deal of this energy is produced on public lands.
America has not been very active in nuclear power, as has Japan, Sweden, France and other countries. This is probably due to the extreme difficulty imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and some extreme environmental groups that have a tendency to oppose any and all development. It would be reasonable for a new administration to work with Congress and reduce many of the burdensome and nonmeritorious regulations that stifle and discourage development of nuclear energy, tar sands, natural gas, goal gasification, oil shale, etc. The Canadians wisely told the environmentalists to butt out of their affairs, and moved ahead and developed an excellent tar sand production, which has created thousands of jobs and provided an abundant supply of oil.
The experts tell us there is enough recoverable oil (from oil shale) in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah to supply the world for over 100 years. However, many environmental groups vigorously oppose this development. I would hope that responsible candidates feel the importance of the United States doing more toward energy independence.
In 1981, America was 37 percent dependent upon foreign energy; today, the figure is closer to 70 percent. We all want clear air and clean water and our beautiful forests and open space. I am confident this can be accomplished with wise and prudent use of our lands. Contrary to what some think, not every square inch of America is pristine and untouchable. We must ask the question: What is he best use of our land, especially when it comes to energy development?
A few examples would be drilling on Section 1021, which is contiguous to the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve. For those who have been there, it is basically frozen tundra. The part that would be used for drilling is comparable to a brief case on a football field. It is estimated it could produce 1 million barrels of oil a day for 100 years. From the drilling site to the Alyeska Pipeline is just over 70 miles. There has been tremendous emotional debate, but not much in the way of facts.
Another example is the Kiporowitz Plateau in Southern Utah. This site, which is nothing but sage brush, is reported to contain a trillion tons of compliance coal. With new technology concerning coal gasification, this would be a tremendous boost to the energy supply of America.
Yet another example is nuclear, probably the cleanest electrical energy source there is, outside of hydro. Many power companies have expressed a desire to build nuclear power plants, but are discouraged by the many burdensome regulations and potential lawsuits. Meanwhile, many other nations are building nuclear power plants and providing clean and low-cost electricity to their citizens.
As alternative energy only accounts for two percent of our energy, we definitely should encourage more technology to increase that percentage. Meanwhile, we would be wise to increase the production of the known energy sources, such as oil, coal, natural gas and water.
The next administration would be wise to have the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Interior carefully inspect places where we could develop the energies we previously discussed. Also, Congress should face up to the problem and repeal many laws and regulations which are currently on the books and do nothing more than harass and bother those who would finance and produce the energy. Or, we can capitulate to the extremists and buy all our energy from good friends (like Hugo Chavez, Iran and Syria).
In conclusion, it should be obvious to thinking people that it will be extremely difficult to remain a world leader without sufficient energy source.
Hansen represented Utah's 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House for 22 years. He lives in Farmington.
Comments
Nuclear power is a trifecta of interlocking capabilities. The 24-hour output satisfies what is known as base load needs of our power system.
Plus, the excess power at night can be used for a variety of totally clean power technologies.
Hydrogen power can be manufactured at major facilities and distributed for industrial use or to extend our natural gas supplies. Or, it can be made at night from excess electricity at thousands of filling stations throughout the state.
Excess nighttime power can be used to facilitatee the cleanest, most environmentally sensitive methods of getting the oil out of tar sands.
There is a great deal of "elephant insurance" in the regulations inhibiting building new reactors. Real environmentalists will want to see this clean power source helped to reality rather than to continue to throw roadblocks in front of it.
As always from Jim Hansen --
good common sense.
Amen
Text 
jim may be right about the amount of oil from the Alaska field, but it's a drop in the bucket to American needs, which is more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a day, more than 20 million barrels of oil a day. In short, it's like giving someone who is bankrupt an allowance of $5 a week, it's nice but not nearly enough to reduce dependence on foreign imports and will take a decade or more to develop. by then our imports will be even greater because that Alaskan field, while probably as small as Jim says it is, is alsothe last large field developable in US-held territory.
Do the math -- our dependence on foreign oil will have to continue to rise. Absent people actually using less, there's no alternative.
so developing it will help the oil company's bottom line, but little else.