• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Dmitry Vilner of Centennial writes:

Vincent Carroll makes an excellent point regarding the fallacy of energy independence by noting the tradeoffs associated with that grandiose idea (?An Economy of Truth,? June 26). Energy independence sounds attractive but makes sense only if one doesn?t read into it too carefully. In fact, energy independence would force oil and gas prices (and, by extension, prices for goods that depend on transportation and energy, i.e. everything) to skyrocket and tank our economy. Sure, we?ll no longer be held in thrall to the ?oil sheikhs,? but we?ll also pay $10 a gallon at the pump. Moreover, what will fuel our military, whose budget currently exceeds the budgets of the next 19 highest-spending militaries? Ultimately, those who advocate cutting America off from the global economy through a policy of energy independence will not bring America security. They will succeed only in bringing misery and poverty.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Gosh, I'm convinced. Cheap, non-polluting, alternative energy is the worst possible thing that could happen.

Thank Dmitry!

You missed the whole point Charles.
It wont be cheap and it wont nessessarily be non poluting either.
Try reading the post before being stupid.

It won't be cheap in the short term; long term costs are another story.

First, I'm not for cutting us completely off from the international market at all. We need oil, and we probably always will. People like cars. There's no way that an electric car will ever sound or feel like a vintage mucle car moving aggressively through it's gears. Bandimere doesn't have a D-cell category, and for good reason.

However, we do need to pursue other means of fueling portions of our lives. Why not power our lights and heat our water with wind or solar? They are free, and technology is progressing fast enough that soon harnessing them will be an affordable and dependable option. Why not develop alternative fuels for interstate trucking? They drive through Kansas right? That's all corn! They could fuel up for the whole trip without stopping. Ski tram/monorail? Should have been done decades ago, but the longer we wait now, the more expensive it will be. Do it, and make it fun and affordable to ride. And yes, I'd pay a tax for that, as I bet most skiiers/boarders/hikers/anglers would.

My point is, right now we are glutons for oil and coal energy, not being smart about our cumsumption, and the binge is only getting worse. We need to be clever, not greedy.

Rockymountian said:

"Try reading the post before being stupid."

OK Rocky, here's one part of it I read:

"In fact, energy independence would force oil and gas prices (and, by extension, prices for goods that depend on transportation and energy, i.e. everything) to skyrocket and tank our economy."

Yet I can't find one bit of evidence in the letter to support this dramatic contention, upon which the entire opinion is based.

And I'm stupid for not taking this seriously?

Well written Shaupeen. I agree with EVERYTHING your wrote, other than your very last sentence. I don't know if it is as much about gluttony, as opposed to reliance and "entitlement" (that is why people are going crazy for inflationary increases in gasoline prices), but that is just my observation. You could be totally accurate.

Dmitry - good points, but you forgot to mention that energy independence would turn our women into gun-grabbing, flag-burning lesbians and our men into a bunch of limp-writsted "girly men." Our streams would run dry and don't forget that the sun will burn out one day, and where would we be then?

Where does the Rocky find these people?

YAY, we have wind and solar power.... well, not really, but it sure does sound good. Currently, they are more expensive than coal fired or Nat gas. Costs will come down, but not yet.

Both of these "Solutions" have their own problem. The biggest is the nimby factor. No one wants them in their backyard. The second is, they are expensive to build and maintain and are not effiient for thier costs. As to corn....Ethanol pollutes thesame or more than gasoline and is quite a bit less efficient. E-85 is about 80% as efficeint as gasoline. More fuel needed to go the same distance. Also, if you took every acre in the US and planted corn, we would still need to import 20% more and all of our food. There is no free lunch. You will notice the rising food prices lately?

as to the tram.... fine, you want a tram, you pay for it. I am not interested in paying for something to make your life easier..

So, until we have the technology to produce energy effectively and cheaply using alternative methods, we are stuck with importing most of our energy in carbon.

All the money being spent on Iraq, and elswhere overseas....

Imagine if that was being spent subsidising
a brand spanking new photovoltaic solar
system on the roofs of peoples' houses.
They cost 20-30 grand (for the average size home) and those people would most likely be selling electricity back to the power companies.

Gee, in ten years we'd probably cut our fuel oil
comsumption by a third, maybe even half.

I can't see that driving oil/gas prices up.

RICHARD LEE LANDRUM II
LONGMONT

Yes, we do have solar power now, but it is expensive and often requires too much surface area to do much good. But the field of nano-technology is making huge strides, and one of the first areas they are working on is solar power panels. The new panels are small, flexible, and will soon be cheap enough to make solar power an actual option (as opposed to a really good pipe dream).

But for you to say you are against a tram simply because you won't use it is very short-sighted. Of course I'd pay for it, because I'd use it, but that's not the total story. Building a ski tram would help all of Denver and the Front Range because it would generate year-long revenue from residents and tourists AND provide an eco-friendly way to get to the mountains AND remove a lot of traffic from dengerous roads. It wasn't long ago that the citizens of Denver were forced to pony up the $$$ for a new stadium so extortionist Bowlen would have a new place for his criminals, er, players to play. Everyone paid, and no one's getting paid back (except Bowlen, and by the way, we're still waiting for that naming-rights kickback). That place hosts eight games a year. Hundreds of million of dollars so those who can afford it--a small percentage of those who funded it--can use it for it's intended purpose 8 Sundays a year. And you think the ski tram is a bad idea? All I'm saying is the ski tram is a better idea than some of the ones this city has recently funded.

And Dan2, I think "entitlement" is the perfect word. I wish I had thought of it when I was writing my first post.

A modest sized photovoltaic system WILL
cover electricity for the average home.

I didn't say it was cheap. Hard to weigh the costs against pollution and our ever increasing dependence on foreign oil, though. Personally, I think it's time to begin
heading in that direction, and the money
being wasted in Iraq would be much better spent to that end.

Dmitry, where is the data to support your assertions? How will energy independence cut America off from the global economy? Where did you get your $10/gallon figure? Without facts, all this letter is is an opinion of Dmitry Vilner and nothing else.

I'm for energy independence, but not the kind the greens are for. We have about 1,000 years worth of oil in shale in the Western United States. We should guarantee the oil companies say $60 per barrel for oil shale gasoline and eliminate all the environmental challenges that left would bring. Just announcing that we were doing this would probably bring the price of a barrel of oil down 20% or more.

The oil shale industry was gearing up 30 years ago, but when the bottom dropped out of oil prices, they lost a pile of money. The guarantee would eliminate that problem and we would be oil independent within a decade.

Jim,

Wil you drink all the polluted water from the oil shale that doesn't get environmental revue?

Dravus has just redefined "Catch 22" - "until we have the technology to produce energy effectively and cheaply using alternative methods, we are stuck with importing most of our energy in carbon". I don't notice Dravus complaining about the fact that the oil industry gets federal subsidies & tax breaks - how about tying those subsidies & tax breaks to alternative energy development by the oil companies? Interestingly (or sadly) enough, other countries seem to be making more strides in alternative fuel development while US oil companies seem to be interested in 'getting theirs now' and not looking to the future. The US used to be a leader - now it is a follower - which seems to subscribe to the theory that "we are doing it this way because we've always done it this way" when it comes to energy.

Jim,
More often than not, environmentalists and true conservatives are on the same page. Conservation was a primary facet of early conservative philosophy, though it wasn't for "tree hugging" reasons.... early conservatives realized caring for our resources improved the country's financial stability and maintained its control over its own economic destiny.

Many of the so-called conservatives nowadays have no idea about the history of their own philosophy, and instead hail to the bastardized version heralded by so many self-anointed talk-show conservatives like Limbaugh, Rosen, and Hannity, who would rather we remain the lapdogs of OPEC.

Both liberals AND true conservatives would win (ergo, this country would win) if America could break the chains of OPEC dependence. I would be willing to see what benefits shale could provide us as long as it was part of a strategy that included research into other alternative fuels as well.

Devaluing oil will do more to democratize the Middle East than any amount of bombs falling on them.

What about reducing our dependency on cars, not just on the energy to run them? Don't get me wrong, I very much love to take road trips and like the feeling of mobility a car gives me. But - if we could cut down on the lengths we HAVE to drive each day, surely that would be significant.

For example, if more jobs allowed people to work from home half the week, not only would we reduce our energy/car dependence, but companies could save costs by leasing smaller office spaces (something they can't do if people simply choose to carpool to work).

(In my defense)

Guys, this isn't rocket science. Let's supposed we have a policy of energy independence. This can either mean no oil from the Middle East (even from friendly countries like the UAE), or no oil from any other country period. In any case, demand in the United States is not going to automatically fall. So, several things will happen. The energy industry in the United States will turn to increasingly more expensive and less efficient methods of extracting energy-- this can include ethanol, oil shale, cellulose, etc.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with those sources. However, the ratio of cost to output is at present incredibly restrictive. So yes, the price of oil, and the price of other energy in the US would skyrocket, because we just cut our supply drastically and we have to look to expensive, inefficient methods to make up for the demand.

If anyone here has taken an economics course, this is the equivalent of shifting the supply curve far to the left, meaning lower quantity supplied and higher price. Obviously, this is bad, given our penchant for automobiles and, among other things, a fuel-hungry military.

I did, in fact, make $10 a gallon up. I couldn't actually give you a theoretical price for a gallon of gas if all of our oil was domestically produced. But an actual price is not necessary for a simple intuitive evaluation of energy independence.

So in any case, I think the problem is defining "energy independence." I am all for sanctioning Iran and Venezuela, even if it means our prices will increase a little. I think the benefit of isolating those regimes outweighs the energy cost. But energy independence for its own sake is a poorly thought out idea with terrible consequences.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly