U.S Senator Chris Murphy has made a contribution “to the
German Marshall Fund think-tank's Brussels Forum event in the Belgian capital,”
according to Public Service Europe.
The discovery and utilization of shale natural gas in the
United States, according to the newly elected progressive senator, has given lawmakers
a" lazy way out" of making commitments to green technology. "It
provides a very convenient excuse for half of the US Congress to sit on the
sidelines when it talks about real investment in green energy. I think that's a
tragedy."
An “absolute political logjam” on green energy has been produced,
according to Mr. Murphy, by the "immense power of global warming deniers
and this created a political barrier.
"You already had an enormous political barrier to a major investment in green technology, which is this debate that only happens in the US about the science of global warming. And then on top of it, you've got the convenience of a new enormous stability with respect to shale gas production.
"Many of us believe that the only way that you really incentivize a true green energy revolution in the US is to do what many countries in Europe have done, which is create a real domestic marketplace for it. And you do that either through capping the amount of carbon and allowing people to trade or by putting a new price on carbon with a tax. That can't happen in our political context today."
Let’s take it bit by bit.
The reason energy costs are high in the United States is
that there is a product deficit, largely owing to efforts made by legislators
such as Mr. Murphy to artificially hike the cost of energy by depriving the
market of present resources such as energy from shale extraction. The
relatively new technology of fracking is not so much a “lazy way out of making
commitments to green technology” as it is an effort to supply a necessary
product that is, Mr. Murphy may have noticed, very much in demand. If you
increase the product, you reduce the price. Mr. Murphy favors high energy costs
because the high cost of energy is a political spook-on-a-stick that can be
used to force people to demand so called green energy.
The political logjam in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere has
not been caused by an anti-green war on an undeveloped technology. The struggle
for low product pricing has been around much longer than green technology. In a
competitive free market, product pricing is determined by what Adam Smithy used
to call “the invisible hand,” the sum of purchases made by citizens who are not
bullied into choosing products by government economic overseers.
The cost of energy in Mr. Murphy’s own state is a drain on
business. Among the 10 most expensive states in combined energy costs,
Connecticut ranks second, just behind Hawaii,
according to some reports the cultural and political nursery bed of President
Barack Obama.
Should a bill slowly making its way through the General
Assembly pass into law, Connecticut may leap ahead of Hawaii in the national race
to cripple the energy sector. As an incentive to encourage forms of energy
acceptable to progressives and environmentalists, the state legislature is
proposing a bill that would tax oil 1.5 cents per gallon in the first year
following passage, increasing by one percent a year until the tax reaches 3.5
cents per gallon in 2015. The tax haul would then be placed in an Energy
Efficiency Fund that homeowners may draw upon to underwrite the cost of
weatherization, clean burning furnaces and solar panels. Of course, every dedicated
fund in the state – including pensions – are either under financed during hard
times or raided by legislators before election to reduce deficits arising from
their improvident spending. Mr. Obama has recently announced the formation of a
similar fund, an Energy SecurityTrust (EST)
that would fund clean energy research and development.
Connecticut is a small state that could be energy independent
were it to rely on a variety of forms of energy production, including nuclear.
But alas, the progressives and the greens in Connecticut are nuclear averse. When Dominion chose Virginia rather than Connecticut as a site for a new nuclear
plant, no tears were shed in the governor’s mansion.
So long as the price of energy in Mr. Murphy’s state remains high, other low energy
cost states will continue to poach Connecticut businesses, established
entrepreneurs and recent graduates of the state’s high cost educational
establishments.
Shale gas is a natural gas found trapped within shale
formations. The governor of Mr. Murphy’s state, not an anti-green, has
announced his love affair with this form of energy. So ardent are Governor
Dannel Malloy affections that he recently proposed to provide tax credits to
home owners in Mr. Murphy’s state who are prudent enough to switch to a lower
cost, less polluting form of energy. The tax credits presumably are an effort
on the part of Mr. Malloy to tickle the fancy of energy consumers in
Connecticut, many of whom will be marching to the polls in a couple of years to
vote either for or against Mr. Murphy’s continuance in office, always assuming
that voters in Mr. Murphy’s state have not fled to other states that rate much
lower than Connecticut on a list of high energy cost states.
It is always possible that Mr. Murphy, a new arrival in the
beltway, is very busy mastering protocol in the U.S. Senate. He may have missed
the messaging from Mr. Malloy. Or possibly he has not yet had an opportunity to
put out feelers to Mr. Obama, whose administration believes that increased
shale gas development WILL HELP REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, an
eventuality that may not grievously disappoint the folks who received Mr.
Murphy’s pro-green missive at the German Marshall Fund think-tank in Belgium.
Comments
I read your referenced article about Chris Murphy on Energy and have the following commentary about Senator Murphy and our approach to energy in this country. The basis of my comments is my education (graduate/degreed Mechanical Engineer) and 50+ years of industrial and utility power plant design, including system operation, component selection, installation, and operator training. Also, the source of energy has been multiple fossil and nuclear fuels and various firing systems.
First, Senator Murphy like most, if not all, politicians has no real understanding of energy, how it is generated, how it is used, where it comes from (fuels, etc.), or how necessary cost reduction is required. Nor does he understand climate change, popularly referred to as global warming. While statistics do indeed show that there is a global warming, a natural process which has been taking place starting long before the industrial revolution, and while the cause of this is attributed to carbon in the atmosphere, there is no absolute proof that I am contributing to the carbon increase by driving my car every day. This is an unproven half-truth promoted by a "green" group that developed out of the Gore position on pollution, a position which he used unsuccessfully to gain political advantage and a position which has made him a multimillionaire. In fact the loudest voices against carbon generation themselves place no limits on their own style of living (large homes, private airplanes, large cars, etc.).
As to sourcing energy from other than fossil or nuclear fuels, it must be understood that the power generation in this country alone is 1000 GW (gigawatts) per year. How much is a gigawatt, you may ask? Well, ONE GW is ONE BILLION WATTS. (Congress doesn't fathom a number so small as they don't consider a debt of 17 trillion dollars a real or immediate problem. Sorry to be "political" as this was not the point of my memo.) In round numbers, 50% of our power is generated by coal firing, 30% by gas and oil, and 10% by nuclear. Yes indeed there are supplemental sources including wind, minimal solar, minimal hydro, etc., but they can all be lumped together at less than 5% total. This still leaves coal as our major source of power.
While it is not practical nor rational to conceive, terminating coal generation in its entirety would certainly reduce the carbon release in this country. It would also terminate our way of life; literally, everything would STOP. Except for the "greens" who would undoubtedly make provision for themselves via gas and oil energy fuel. What if the coal industry were to take a week off just to prove the point? What would we do? What would the government do?
Let's look at wind power as an alternative source for this energy. Among the many issues not discussed re wind power is the "footprint" of an equivalent generation station compared to a typical fossil or nuclear fuel based generation station. A small fossil utility unit is 500 MW; some (nuclear) are as big as 1200 MW. The largest land based wind towers (to date) are 2.5 MW. To generate 500 MW, 200 wind towers are required. If we factor in the 30% availability factor, three times that number are required, or 600 towers. That equates to a 25 x 25 layout (nominally). Given the 400 foot height of the towers (nominal), the spacing between towers is 800 feet. This equates to a land area in excess of 13 square miles, not counting power distribution yards, interconnecting cable (towers and/or trenches), emergency backup power, maintenance garages, operations offices, etc. Also, never discussed is the noise, rotor shadow, impact on wild life, impact on adjacent property values, or maintenance requirements. While I do not oppose wind power development and deployment, it is necessary that ALL issues be discussed, something the environmentalists and media tend to avoid. So does the government. Adding to the burden is the conversion from DC to AC power for distribution, since wind turbines can generate only in DC. Based upon the arrangement discussed above, approximately one third of the nation would have to be covered with turbine towers to replace the coal generation alone. I can hear the protests now: NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!.
The impact of solar generated power is even greater.
And as a side comment, with all the energy shortage and cost, the President thinks nothing of fueling AF1 on a regular basis to make presentations where ever he sees political advantage. He should be required to hold the gas nozzle and watch the meter ring up the cost every time he "fills up", not to mention the gas consumption for his caravan of cars, or for the cost to taxpayers to transport his dog on vacation on a separate plane.