Crude oil prices recently hit new highs (mostly because the dollar hit new lows), and so once again we find ourselves thinking about American energy policy. Despite their expressions of concern, none of the leading presidential candidates offer any solutions meant to either alleviate short term stress or abrogate long term problems. They prefer to mire themselves in the Disneyland of thought about what "might be" and tout solutions for which we lack both means and technology to bring to bear.
I have, for some time, researched the concept of solar panels for my own 100-acre ranch in Wyoming. When I was in graduate school, I roomed with a family which kept itself completely off the grid. True, solar and wind generated insufficient energy to meet all their needs, but Adrian simply fired up the generator when the batteries ran dry and all was well. It is conceivably possible to, at relatively little upkeep expense, provide all of one's own power needs, but not everywhere people live. Adrian lived on a sloping escarpment about 10 miles north of town with a permanent southern exposure. His proximity to a lake ensured constant winds. His lack of neighbors gave his panels and turbines unobstructed access, and the distal proximity of neighbors vouchsafed against complaints of eyesore. For him, it was a panacea.
For most people, generating our own power is neither possible nor practical. For the United States, however, it is not only possible and practical, it is imperative. The United States possesses energy resources that might render it independent of all exigent sources for power. We get plenty of sun, wind, and water for renewable energy, but we also possess a plethora of coal, oil, natural gas, and most importantly, Uranium.
Don't misunderstand me. I live in Nevada, but I endorse nuclear power. I am not sure Nevada has much nuclear material, but I know Clinton prevented access to a great deal thereof under Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah- a vast expanse of nothingness that nobody would care to visit let alone pay visitation fees to support the Park Service facilities established there.
We westerners perhaps think differently of self-reliance. Our ancestors, more proximal in time than our coastie neighbors, eeked out a subsistence living on the prairies. My own progenitors played an integral role in vegetating the vast salt marshes of the Wasatch and Uinta flood basins. I'm glad I didn't see it before they got to work.
I believe, like my ancestors, that we ought produce as much of our own as we can. Domestic supply suffers less from the vicissitudes of war and terror that shake the nations abroad than might be occasioned from trading partners, no matter how benign our association. Additionally, the more proximal the source, the less subject it is to aberrations of nature that impede shipments, either wrecking ships or waylaying cargo when forces beyond our control inhibit transport. Plus, Americans are less likely to cheat each other than foreign potentates are to cheat us, envious they be of our prosperity.
One final reference to the pioneer builders of this nation. They did not follow a singular vector in their settlement and all get behind the same cart. They spread out far and wide through many settlements and attacked the wilderness everywhere in concurrent fashion. It makes little sense to me for our leaders to endorse and pursue exclusively one method for solving energy concerns at the exclusion of all others. There is no energy El Dorado that will solve all of our problems. If we want constant, consistent, and safe energy sources for today and tomorrow, we ought to be doing everything in our power everywhere we can to attack the wilderness. For those who want to follow the impractical and often prohibitively expensive course of renewable resources, let them. Meanwhile, what about coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? Let's mine what we have, build refineries, and power ourselves long enough to develop and perfect alternative means.
Said a great American patriot, Patrick Henry: "We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of Nature hath provided us." Nature gave us these things to use. Until we find something better, it makes cowards and fools of men to ignore what they have and opine what they have not.
I have, for some time, researched the concept of solar panels for my own 100-acre ranch in Wyoming. When I was in graduate school, I roomed with a family which kept itself completely off the grid. True, solar and wind generated insufficient energy to meet all their needs, but Adrian simply fired up the generator when the batteries ran dry and all was well. It is conceivably possible to, at relatively little upkeep expense, provide all of one's own power needs, but not everywhere people live. Adrian lived on a sloping escarpment about 10 miles north of town with a permanent southern exposure. His proximity to a lake ensured constant winds. His lack of neighbors gave his panels and turbines unobstructed access, and the distal proximity of neighbors vouchsafed against complaints of eyesore. For him, it was a panacea.
For most people, generating our own power is neither possible nor practical. For the United States, however, it is not only possible and practical, it is imperative. The United States possesses energy resources that might render it independent of all exigent sources for power. We get plenty of sun, wind, and water for renewable energy, but we also possess a plethora of coal, oil, natural gas, and most importantly, Uranium.
Don't misunderstand me. I live in Nevada, but I endorse nuclear power. I am not sure Nevada has much nuclear material, but I know Clinton prevented access to a great deal thereof under Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah- a vast expanse of nothingness that nobody would care to visit let alone pay visitation fees to support the Park Service facilities established there.
We westerners perhaps think differently of self-reliance. Our ancestors, more proximal in time than our coastie neighbors, eeked out a subsistence living on the prairies. My own progenitors played an integral role in vegetating the vast salt marshes of the Wasatch and Uinta flood basins. I'm glad I didn't see it before they got to work.
I believe, like my ancestors, that we ought produce as much of our own as we can. Domestic supply suffers less from the vicissitudes of war and terror that shake the nations abroad than might be occasioned from trading partners, no matter how benign our association. Additionally, the more proximal the source, the less subject it is to aberrations of nature that impede shipments, either wrecking ships or waylaying cargo when forces beyond our control inhibit transport. Plus, Americans are less likely to cheat each other than foreign potentates are to cheat us, envious they be of our prosperity.
One final reference to the pioneer builders of this nation. They did not follow a singular vector in their settlement and all get behind the same cart. They spread out far and wide through many settlements and attacked the wilderness everywhere in concurrent fashion. It makes little sense to me for our leaders to endorse and pursue exclusively one method for solving energy concerns at the exclusion of all others. There is no energy El Dorado that will solve all of our problems. If we want constant, consistent, and safe energy sources for today and tomorrow, we ought to be doing everything in our power everywhere we can to attack the wilderness. For those who want to follow the impractical and often prohibitively expensive course of renewable resources, let them. Meanwhile, what about coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? Let's mine what we have, build refineries, and power ourselves long enough to develop and perfect alternative means.
Said a great American patriot, Patrick Henry: "We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of Nature hath provided us." Nature gave us these things to use. Until we find something better, it makes cowards and fools of men to ignore what they have and opine what they have not.
No comments:
Post a Comment