Energy

One of the biggest factors in considering energy policy is consumer demand. To meddle with market signals used by energy producers always has perverse and unintended consequences. Further, a policy of onerous regulations, to the extent that the regulators themselves aren’t familiar with them is never an effective policy.

There is quite the demand for a gasoline alternative, and the powers that be have suggested that ethanol is a viable alternative. Renewable, and produced from corn, it should be cheaper that gasoline, and it was, for a while. The demand grew, and the price of E85 (an 85/15% blend of ethanol and gasoline), when calculated as price per mile due to its lower efficiency, is roughly similar to that of gasoline. With no net effect in its usage as a fuel, it’s certainly driven the price of corn up as a side effect. Hemp, on the other hand, produces several times as much fuel as corn, and while it has several other uses, it won’t drive up the cost of food. Hemp, however, is prohibited in the United States because it is considered a controlled substance. Removing such prohibitions and other regulations allow, and promote innovation, leading us to more effective solutions.

Quite the same can be said for nuclear power. While there are very good arguments on both sides of the table, without allowing people and companies to innovate, and find solutions to adversity, it can be certain that our endeavor of safe, clean, and efficient energy will never be achieved. While solar and wind generation are potentially viable alternatives, I believe that all ideas should be on the table, and the market will decide what is best for any given situation.

I favor the further research and implementation of thorium-based energy production. Thorium is abundant, and therefore inexpensive, produces less than 1% of the waste that an otherwise equal uranium power plant does, and that waste is benign in under 200 years, compared to the 10,000 years for uranium waste. Thorium cannot be used to make nuclear weapons, it cannot “melt down”, and there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country for over 1000 years.

I believe that we should strive to generate all of our energy domestically. I view this as a national security issue. While offshore drilling for oil can be dangerous and disastrous on rare occasions, I am in favor of it, with the following caveats:

Responsible parties will be 100% responsible for any damages they cause. There can be no financial cap on damages of any kind.
Companies would be required to carry insurance to cover any potential damages.

And:

These insurance companies, acting in their own best interest, would hire third-party companies with expertise in drilling safety to minimize the potential for accident or disaster.
These insurance companies would, in effect, be the regulators of the drilling industry, and one can surmise, will do a better job than the federal government in that regard.
The insurance companies would cover any loss shown to be caused by an accident, in full.
Insurance companies would likely require private companies that specialize in cleanup to be on call and nearby, in case of accident.
These cleanup companies, acting in their own best interest, would likely be very skilled and efficient at cleaning and containing disasters and would have the latest technology and up to date training at their disposal.

Yet again, we can see how fewer, but more sensible regulations can lead to better efficiency and safer production in every arena of energy production, drastically reducing the possibility for major and minor spills alike, and mitigate such events effectively.

On Cap and Trade and carbon tax schemes

What more than a potential source of revenue for a spendthrift government is ‘carbon tax’? Unfortunately, one of the characteristics of taxation is that it always gets passed on to the end user. While I haven’t yet seen any overwhelming evidence supporting or refuting anthropogenic global warming, it is certain that governments should not, and can not do anything to curb this alleged ‘man-made climate change’. I oppose any carbon tax scheme, especially those on energy production. If it can be proven that man does, and has had the capability to change the average global temperature in any significant way, I’m certain that market based solutions will be, as they usually are, the best for everyone.

While I could further expound upon the manner in which burdensome government regulation drives up the cost of energy and stifles innovation, it’s quite clear that if government got out of the energy production business altogether, we could get on the fast track to energy independence.