Page 18 RAIN October 1981 ~rn~®~rn~mv~ffi[ ~rn~[Wffi~mm ~rnw~rn ~rn[~rnw . by Kevin Bell !'Jaw that some of the dust has settled from Reagan's initial skirmishes on the energy frontier, it is worth taking a look at a few of the more interesting aspects of our nation's new push towards the hard path, as embodied in the new National Energy Plan. The Department of Energy has flatly stated that if the law didn't require it, there wouldn't be an energy plan this year, and NEP III reads more like a slim campaign speech than a coherent strategy. The Reagan Administration has chosen to take a Pollyanna approach to energy, with the expectation that market forces, benevolent multinational corporations, and the vast showers of wealth generated by Reagan's Economic Recovery Plan will obliterate any and all problems that might arise. Some of the main features include: OIL NEP III's attitude towards oil imports is typical of the tone of the entire report: "Even at its current high price, imported oil is substantially less expensive in some circumstances than available alternatives. The Nation would be remiss if it did not press the search for less expensive domestic alternatives. Yet its vision would be equally narrow if market forces were distorted through indiscriminate subsidies for alternatives that cost more than imported oil now and offer no short term to midterm likelihood of being economically competitive. Furthermore, there is an international dimension to the problem of oil vulnerability. Damage to other free world economies inevitably affects the United States as well, so we cannot entirely protect ourselves from disruptions in the world energy market by reducing our dependence on imports and trying to isolate ourselves from everyone else." What other oil dependent nations gain from US competition for world oil supplies is never made clear. But despite cost estimates in the range of $80 per barrel for synfuels and predictions of a world oil price in the range of $100 per barrel(1980$) by 1990, NEP III seeks to reduce foreign oil dependence over the next decade by about a third as much as imports havtr already dropped in the last two years alone. "Failure to know our resources potential, to inventory our resources-intentionally forbidding proper access to needed resources-limits this Nation and its ability to produce and use energy resources effectively." ' NEP III calls for complete access to Federal lands by energy companies, allows for increased concentration of corporate control of Federally leased lands, and seeks to gut legislation such as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act by transferring oversight control to the states while "replacing rigidly prescriptive 'cookbook' design standards (telling industry what it must do) with performance standards that are more responsive to local needs and conditions (telling industry what it is obliged to accomplish through its own resourcefulness)." As to environmental issues, "Energy-environmental conflicts arise because diverse groups place different values on energy itself and on individual elements of the existing environment which are altered as energy is produced, delivered, or used.' Market mechanisms can resolve such conflicts if each of the resources in question (say, a certain number of tons of coal, or so many square feet of undisturbed soil and grass) can be valued in terms of price or opportunity costs. In these cases, the market values (not only to potential buyers and se.Ilers, but occasionally to the public at large) allocate su'ch environmental resources as land use and water rights." NUCLEAR POWER "Nuclear power has proven to be a safe, economical aryd environmentally acceptable energy source. Furthermore, the United States has substantial domestic resources of uranium ore, capable of lasting well into the 21st century as used in the current generation of reactors. Breeder technology multiplies the effectiveness of '- these resources sixty-fold, so that they could last easily for several· centuries." Believe it or not, this single paragraph constitutes the sum total of NEP's discussion of the desirability of nuclear power. The belief that nuclear generation is a viable, cost-effective technology is apparently based on the premise that nuclear and coal-fired generation are the only alternatives to oil fired power plants. However, the fact that wasting two-thirds of the energy value of uranium or coal is cheaper than wasting two thirds of the energy value of oil to produce electricity for heating hardly makes nuclear power a least cost option. California, one of the most oil dependent regions in the country, plans to retire essentially all of its baseload oil plants ~y The Department of Energy has ffatly stated that if the Jaw didn't require it, there wouldn't be an energy plan this year. 1992. Coal generation is dead las~ on that state's list of priorities,' and is not expected to be needed. Nuclear generation isn't even on the list. What's more, the California Energy Commission has in- · formed Washington utilities attempting to sell California power from their financially disastrous and as yet uncompleted WPPSS nuclear projects that California expects to have little trouble tinding cheaper sources of electricity. How much money the Reagan Administration is prepared to pour down the nuclear rathole remains . to be seen. . CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE Aside from a temporary commitment to tax rebates, NEP III calls for limiting Federal involvement in conservation and :renewables to high risk, long-term research, elimir:i.ating support for consumer products, advanced automotive energy design, electric and hybrid vehicle design, and industrial process effieiency. Public information and commercialization is to be left up to the private sector, and the 1982 Federal budget slashes conservation and renewable programs by about two-thirds. Unfortunately, Reagan plans to do little to correct the historic imbalances in the private sector that led to our dependence on fossil fuels in the first place. As TVA Administrator David Freeman has pointed out, "Market forces are heavily tilted in favor of energy production and against conservation. The production organizations have access to capital on terms that would be the envy of the average energy consumer." Reagan has also been considerably more reluctant about cutting
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz