US Energy Policy, What should the US Energy Policy Be?

This is not a complete answer, but it rebuts several important points that Tom Byron makes in his answer: If moderation wants to bury it in comments, so be it. I agree that there should be some reassessment of nuclear power given advances in the technology from forty or fifty years ago when most existing reactors in the US were built. Shorter half-lives of reactor spent fuel and designs that preclude meltdown (e.g. molten salt reactors) should be explored.  As with any new technology using radioactive material, it needs to be thoroughly vetted and made secure. Coal: 'Clean Coal' would be a godsend, but cleaning it thoroughly seems to be uneconomical after energy inputs and/or post-burning processing costs, as well as maintenance of cleaning technology.  There is no such thing as Economical Clean Coal.  It should be our last resort. "Natural gas that is ... technically recoverable" must include the technology of fracking which has not yet been proven safe. Geological mishaps, wastewater disposal or contanination, and consumption of water in processing are all pertinent issues.  If this technology is used to base the statistics on, I think they misstate the facts. Three Forks, etc.: 7.4 billion bbls of oil sounds like a lot.  At the US demand of somewhere around 6 million Bbbl/day that would supply US needs for four more years.  The gas estimates, I suspect are weaker, or may require fracking or 'enhanced recovery'. I don't know. "We need to have a national debate on fracking, a technology about as old as I am. We have to cut through the rhetoric and decide what s fracking. North Dakota sees it as a job producer with about 3% in their state. " Agreed.  That national debate should occur, and not between talking heads, but experts.  Not a heated exchange, but informational.  Likely chance of that happening? Of course North Dakota 'sees'  it as a job producer.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, too.  I 'see' it as a risky technology that could make parcels of land uninhabitable and of limited usefulness, and a drain on our water resources. EDIT:   Forgot to mention the other hot energy source, tar sands.  They are an extreme case of stretching the limits of enhanced recovery.  The oil is mixed with sand and must be separated, whole stretches of land are dug up to "harvest" the sand, and the net energy delivered is low due to the high processing and transport costs.  I believe it is also a very low grade oil, thus "tar" sands.  It's no panacea, and perhaps a net loser, considering environmental costs.  I believe there is a pile of unwanted waste from tar sands processing that the Koch bros. are storing in some Midwestern city that's causing the neighbors to be upset.  Last I heard it's ultimate destination was unknown.  I think it consists of a very low-grade coke (nice coincidence) which will be sold to China to make steel.

The US Energy policy should: encourage, promote, and subsidize the quick and efficient transition to renewable resources. be designed by people who have the long range interest of all Americans as their aim (not by those who want to enrich only one sector of the population). In order for this to happen, the US election process must be radically transformed so that legislators are motivated to please their constituents and not their campaign contributors.

Phase out anything that contributes to Greenhouse Gases.  Because Climate Change is real, and rather worse than most people predicted. There is big scope for renewables. But the business classes mostly want to carry on as before, with Fracking the latest gimmick.

In most areas the USA does not have internal agreement on an energy policy, so change has been driven by price trends (in turn driven by foreign countries), non-government actors, and state government policies. These have already accomplished increased gas and oil production, reduced oil consumption, reduced natural gas prices, substituted natural gas for coal, and started wind and solar electricity and electric car industries on a growth path. This situation is likely to continue. States are free to decide how to regulate or encourage fracking, nuclear power, renewable power, electric vehicles, and conservation. The existing federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon could be equalized to tax fuels at the same rate based on CO2 and pollutant emission. For example, a rate of $25/ton CO2 would tax gasoline at 21 cents/gallon, natural gas at $1/tcf, and coal at $40/ton. This would have little effect on gasoline and electricity prices (1.2 cents/kWh), but help continue to shift electricity generation from coal to natural gas and renewables, and provide a rate benchmark for China etc. to tax carbon.

Exactly how much energy capability does the U.S. currently possess? The U.S. has an enormous potential to produce electrical power, gasoline, and nuclear power. How come the phrase "The Saudi Arabia of coal" is a descriptor of North America? If it is true, why are we not using our own oil and coal today? 10 years ago? Why is the Keystone XL pipeline still a debate and not a done deal? My post on this topic is here There are answers to all of these questions, but there are also political agendas and protests by well meaning and not so well meaning activists out there. What ever our resources are, the President Carter model of, "...turn your thermostats down and put on a sweater...", should not be one of them. With the advancement in nuclear power, beyond the ancient graphite reactor technology, we could follow the French and produce nearly all of our power from nuclear power. Why don't we? We have the rivers, and the resources. Maybe we lack the courage to follow a foreign country's lead. Maybe we listen to activists and scare mongers, more than scientists and business leaders. My discussion on this from 15-Mar-13 The difference in costs are interesting: Cost comparisons: Type                   Capacity       Cost Wind (off shore)    27%           330.6 Wind (land)           34%             96.8 Hydro                    53%             89.9 Solar                20-25%           156.9 Nuclear                 90%           112.7 Nat. Gas          30-87%         65-132 Coal                      85%             99.6 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#section_3 How much natural resources are available in the U.S.? COAL- It’s simple: Coal is one of America’s most abundant domestically produced energy resources. America has more coal within its borders than any other country with over 260 billion tons of coal reserves. America’s recoverable coal reserves has the energy equivalent of 900 billion barrels of oil, more than the Middle East’s know oil reserves. Read more + Our abundant coal will provide American families and businesses with affordable electricity for decades to come. In fact, America’s 260 billion tons of coal reserves would last 290 years at current consumption rates. http://m.americaspower.org/america-powered-worlds-largest-supply-coal NATURAL GAS- EIA estimates that there are 2,203 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas that is technically recoverable in the United States. At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2011 of about 24 Tcf per year, 2,203 Tcf of natural gas is enough to last about 92 years. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=58&t=8 OIL- The formations, called Bakken and Three Forks, span much of western North Dakota, the northern tip of South Dakota and the northeastern tip of Montana. The last time the United States Geological Survey assessed this area for its oil and gas reserves was in 2008. But that assessment did not include the Three Forks formation, which explains the substantial increase in the estimates. USGS estimates that these two formations together hold 7.4 billion barrels of undiscovered—but technically recoverable—oil and 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/the-u-s-has-much-much-more-gas-and-oil-than-we-thought-20130430 The United States has the resources as you can see, and we have the technology. The demand for energy is global. We only lack the social and political will to solve our energy situation. Since I was a teenager, in the 50's, we have been creating more and more efficient cars and power production for electricity. We need to take a few steps to move into this area and use what we have learned. Natural gas should be more widely available for busses, cabs and urban vehicles. The New York Times agrees it is a logical step. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/automobiles/natural-gas-waits-for-its-moment.html National Energy Policy: We need to have a national debate on fracking, a technology about as old as I am. We have to cut through the rhetoric and decide what s fracking. North Dakota sees it as a job producer with about 3% in their state. Pipelines are far safer than rail or water in the U.S. If the U.S. Is interested in the environment and clean air and carbon emissions, why let the Canadian's produce oil and ship it to China. We can employ people to refine it and use it here. Cleaner and safer. Nuclear Power is our most efficient and proven energy capability. We need to bring one nuclear plant on line for every coal plant retired. We have gotten way behind on this capacity production. Safety first, but over licensing and changing rules from EPA during construction does not make sense. Solar, and wind production are great ideas but are not sufficient for powering major cities. Great for rural areas, but still not a replacement for a nuclear plant, or a hydro plant for that matter. All options that are proven and are safe should be used. Jobs will be created, taxes will be generated and then American's can tell Putin we will supply Europe with our surplus supply of Natural Gas. An energy policy of "we can do this" through our American talent, and know how. Why, being held hostage to radicals makes any sense, is just not proper.

The US government owns vast quantities of land with equally vast potential or verified mineral deposits which could be exploited.  These include crude oil, natural gas, and (I think) coal deposits.  There have been some leases granted to energy production companies to extract these minerals, but actual licenses to drill have been issued very slowly. The USA currently imports around half of the energy it needs to live the life style enjoyed today by all residents.  This is changing with new energy production activities - particularly in North Dakota.  It is possible for the USA to become energy independent in just a few years if the government allows this to happen. The USA has more coal deposits than any other country.  Production of this resource is hampered by federal policy intended to put this industry out of business. So, I think the national policy for energy should include: 1.  Coal production should be encouraged rather than opposed by the government.  Domestic use of this source of energy should be regulated to limit the release of pollutants such as coal dust and hydrocarbons to the atmosphere.  This should not be considered as part of the carbon dioxide policy any more than other fossil fuels.  Export of coal should be encouraged. 2.  Federal lands and mineral rights should be exploited to the maximum possible extent.  Every effort should be made to maximize domestic energy production in all forms.  Leases and drilling licenses should be expedited rather than delayed by the federal bureaucracy.  This approach to federal lands and energy production will help with both energy independence and federal budget issues since the royalties for produced energy goes straight to the government. 3.  The Keystone XL pipeline should be authorized and built.  Other infrastructure needed to exploit energy resources should be expedited. 4.  Licenses for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals should be issued and export of this abundant energy source should be encouraged.  Any necessary changes to federal law should be enacted to allow this and other energy exports including crude oil and coal. 5.  US taxpayer money should not be used to build any energy production companies whether Green or conventional.  Use of taxpayer funds for research is OK, but attempts to form commercial businesses is best left to the private sector. In general, the federal government should encourage both domestic production and export of energy resources.  This could be used to fix the negative balance of trade that energy has created in the past.  Energy production on federal lands should also be expedited.  Perhaps the royalties from federal mineral rights should be used strictly to reduce the national debt. The current thrust by the Obama administration to "Fix" the fictional "Global Warming" problem should be eliminated.  Instead the USA should become the world's biggest producer of fossil fuels for both domestic and export use.  The war on energy and carbon dioxide should be eliminated from the USA.  It is clear that any progress on air pollution from fossil fuels must be addressed in China and other developing countries to have any significant world wide impact.  The US policy should recognize the need for clean air, but the attack on fossil fuels should be focused on those countries that still have significant air pollution problems like China.  US energy policy should focus on maximizing energy independence and financial gain from the vast natural resources the USA has in this crucial part of the US economy.