Renewable Energy is Homeland Security (Opinion)
I have my pet peeves. I really hate roller-bags, people not walking down escalators, and discovering that Flex Fuel has been around for over 20 years and nobody bothered to implement it. My feelings are not limited to Flex Fuel, but all abandoned fuel economy technologies all together. The fact that a nation as wealthy as ours has not been implementing fuel saving technology does not bode well for our collective energy future.
- » See also: Physicians Group Comes Out Strongly Against Coal Power
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
First, let’s talk about the politics of energy independence, then we will talk economics. The politics are simple, renewable energy is homeland security. The best way to protect the country is to not depend on other countries that do not particularly like us. I’m no geopolitical genius or anything, but in today’s day and age, money is power. While we are rich as a nation, a lot of other nations are getting awfully rich as well. A very rich and powerful country could very easily hold us hostage by suspending our energy imports. Energy is a lot like national debt. We need oil to drive cars like we need a huge debt to keep taxes down. They both hurt the security of our nation. I really don’t think it is very wise to have most of our financial aspects owned by other countries, just like I don’t think we should be basing our economy around a commodity which is well past it’s half life (according to the US Energy Administration Association, we will run out of reasonably cheap gas by 2040, assuming $4 to be a reasonable price). So what do we do about these issues?
First and foremost: vote! Just look at the facts and see who you want to lead this country through the next four years. Vote for whoever you want, just vote. Another important thing we can do is push for more government regulation of the auto industry. According to author and president of the Mars Society Robert Zubrin, we have had Flex Fuel capabilities for over 20 years, but the economics of our situation have not warranted that we do anything. Government has a role in our lives, and if they can tell us that our analog TV’s have to be digital by 2009, then they can tell us our cars all need to be hybrids by 2015. I’ve always favored more government regulation (uh oh, the partisanship of my personality is starting to show, and I don’t bleed red), and the auto industry should not be exempt from these regulations. But there is a science to why we are still racing stock cars instead of pod racers. It’s called economics and evolution.
Evolution is amazing. We only evolve what we need to survive, that’s why the energy crises only instills a sense of urgency in me, not fear. Human beings have this amazing ability to adapt and evolve. The problem with evolution in todays society is that economic signaling replaces natural selection. The economic signals are starting to make their way into America’s collective conscience, and the automotive industry is responding. As Confucius once said, the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the next best time is today. This can be sorely misconstrued and taken out of context to support drilling in Alaska. While some of us live by the mantra “drill baby drill,” there is another half of us who are a little bit more relaxed that would rather we not drill now, nor ever again. The best time to be driving an electric car was twenty years ago, the next best time to do it is now.
Now the US government is ever so slightly beginning to regulate the energy economy. There are some bills being proposed like the Open Fuels Standards Act (it’s been overshadowed by another bill, something about a bailout or maybe it it was about a saving bulls or something…). The energy future remains relatively unclear. Will it be powered by electric cars? Perhaps Hybrids or hydrogen? I personally would choose bicycles, but I couldn’t see Dick Cheeney wanting to ride his bike to the White House in a suit. One thing is for certain, the market will decide. Let’s hope the government can guide us a responsible and self-sufficient energy future.
More On Energy and Politcs:
REGISTER TO VOTE NOW! (not later, right this minute)
Robert Zubrin and His Book
An Electric Car You Can Make that Works Just Fine (Even though the body is older than Flex Fuel Technology)
Energy and Policy
Barackin’ For Biofuels
Thanks to the Udall Legacy Bus Tour for the image of what I consider the true US Department of Homeland Security (under Flickr’s Creative Commons).
Dear Anthony,
Great points. Unfortunately we tend to wait until we hit a crisis before we become focused on solutions. Your quote from Confucius - ”the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the next best time is today” is right on point. While we may not have moved renewable technologies forward as far as we might have in the past, it is vital that we do so today, and at as fast a pace as possible.
America could shift from being a consumer of fuel to a producer, through developing new energy technologies.
For example, there’s a company in California that is getting a lot of attention with its algae biofuel. While there are still many competing solutions for vehicle fuels, I think this one is particularly promising.
Just imagine America replacing the Middle East as the world’s source of vehicle fuel. This year the Middle East will receive roughly a trillion dollars from around the world for its oil exports, with billions of dollars coming from the US. What if those dollars were flowing in the other direction? Imagine what that would do for America, in terms of revenue and new jobs for our citizens.
I wrote a whole post around this recently that has some more references, etc. if you want to check it out: http://www.andrew-duggan.com/?p=72
Thanks for all you’re doing to promote fuel alternatives. We need them more than ever.
Andrew Duggan
Hey Anthony,
Its refreshing to read an opinion of someone of like mind. You might like this post I wrote for Gas2.org back in August:
http://gas2.org/2008/08/11/beyond-obama-a-biofuel-stimulus-for-president/
Here’s to an alcohol-fueled America, my friend.
-Mike Payne-
I agree that we do major harm to our economy by using so much imported oil.
I’m not sure that liquid fuels will be the way to go for vehicles, in the long run. The Open Fuels Standards Act would prevent vehicle manufacturers from creating an all-electric line. Unless the proposed OFSA is revised to credit hydrogen, compressed air, and electricity as fuel options, I’m ready to say that this bill would be bad for us in the long run since we don’t yet have the technology to provide enough flex fuel to power the fleet of flex fuel cars that this bill would mandate.
Perhaps we should look at a different approach to weaning ourselves from petroleum: over the course of a 5-10 years, we scale back on imported oil until we are not importing any at all except, perhaps, in the form of plastics. In the mean time, we should significantly invest in the construction of long-distance DC transmission lines, incredibly rapid deployment of desert solar facilities in the Southwest, non-internal combustion vehicle purchase offsets, and non-internal combustion vehicle technology.
Finally, we must get efficient. Efficient with transportation, efficient with buildings, efficient with land usage. Really, we need to get efficient at a crazy rate so we need to spend the sort of money that we’ve just put in to the bailout into efficiency and energy independence deployment.
Bill,
The best thing that we can do is be as efficient as possible! It’s something that we do not do nearly well enough. I often think how oil may not be an issue right now if we had treated it like the nonrenewable resource we know it to be all along. I remember learning what a nonrenewable resource was in the 2nd grade and I’ve been worried about running out ever since. Thanks for the input.
~anthony
YES!
If strong and continuous investment in renewable energy had been a #1 priority over the past decade the current economical crisis would not be as bad; a huge new sector would have been opened creating A LOT new jobs now and in the near future.
[...] For the record, I support all forms of alternative energy. Anything but oil I say, it’s a relic of the Cold War as far as I’m concerned. But what will be the future of energy? Well, my time machine wasn’t completely accurate. While I sincerely hope that we can establish an electric infrastructure, it appears that the market will decide our energy future (for more on the economics, read my last post). [...]
“The problem with evolution in today’s society is that economic signaling replaces natural selection.”
If more people understood the principles behind that one sentence, then government would work much more efficiently. Great article with lots of great points.
Not only is Algae the way to go, but it also cleans our air at the same time. Just go onto You-Tube and put in Algae Biofuel and you will see all the posts that come up. Including the “Vertigro” system from Glen Kertz, CEO of Valcent Products. Also Algae systems that take the polution that smoke stacks are putting out, takes that polution & creates Algae Biofuel and lets off 100% oxygen.
I don’t agree with “more government regulation of the auto industry”, or any industry in general. However, I’ve read Zubrin’s book and become convinced to make an exception in this case and now support a mandate that all vehicles sold in the US be flex fuel capable (FULL flex fuel, including methanol).
Personally, I’d offset that and go for a net reduction in big government by bundling that mandate with repealing a number of others, and by scrapping the hydrogen hoax, which Zubrin has revealed to be physically and economically impossible - a giant boondoggle staggering along only because of tax dollars pumped into it by ignorant or deceitful politicians.
By the way we don’t need “strong and continuous investment” in alternative energy. No subsidies, no complicated tax incentives or handouts or Byzantine regulations. Just the simple mandate, that all new cars sold in the US be flex fuel capable.
By the way, an important point: Zubrin did not call for a mandate that all cars be hybrids. Hybrids are different from FFVs. A hybrid contains a second engine, electric, along with the internal combustion engine (which is usually gasoline-only). An FFV has only one engine, a internal combustion engine but its ICE can burn not only gasoline but also alcohol fuel. It’s theoretically possible to have flex fuel hybrid, which has an alcohol capable ICE as well as an electric too.
But hybrid capability costs thousands of dollars per car, add hundreds of pounds of weight, and adds redundancy (TWO engines per car), complexity, and propensity for breakdowns. And by itself it does not wean us off gasoline, just at best slows the growth in the rise in gasoline use.
FFV capability costs $100 per car when made a standard part of the vehicle, and adds virtually nothing in weight and very little in complexity. And it’s a game-changer, switching us from a petroleum economy to an alcohol economy.
The distinction is VERY important; don’t mix them up!