With his bold but ill-considered agenda on climate action, President Obama is taking the American people down a path they did not choose and should have grave doubts about following.
The U.S.-backed deal taking shape at the Paris climate talks has ominous implications that will impact American industries and workers.
Because energy and electricity are basic necessities, the economic consequences of relying heavily on renewable energy sources to achieve sharp carbon emission cuts would be severe, resulting in higher prices for energy that could hobble economic growth. The cost in dollars and forfeited jobs would be significant.
The problem is this: The Obama administration is committed to replacing the use of fossil fuels with subsidized solar and wind power. But there is no technology available for large-scale energy storage to meet electricity demand on days when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
If base-load power plants are shut down and renewables can’t meet electricity needs, as happened a few years ago in Germany when nuclear power was abandoned after the Fukushima accident, we could wind up with power shortages and higher electricity prices.
If renewables can’t meet future energy needs in the U.S., there might be no other option than to take coal plants out of retirement and risk canceling out much of the progress that’s already been made in carbon reductions. We could wind up back on square one.
As the leader of a political party that takes pride in science-based reason, Obama’s infatuation with wind and solar is misplaced. Despite tens of billions of taxpayer subsidies thrown their way, wind and solar power combined supply only 5% of U.S. electricity and require back-up power when the weather isn’t cooperating.
Yet the administration is less interested in two energy sources that are doing most of the heavy lifting in the efforts to reduce carbon emissions — nuclear power and natural gas.
Nuclear power — long shunned by the political left, despite its impressive performance — generates nearly 20% of the nation’s electricity but more than 60% of the carbon-free power. Over the past 50 years, nuclear plants — by offsetting fossil-fuel combustion — have avoided the emission of an estimated 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Yet the Obama administration has treated nuclear power, a proven low-carbon option, as if it’s expendable, taking no action to prevent the recent shutdown of several safe and reliable nuclear plants such as Kewaunee in Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee Power, Pilgrim Nuclear Power in Massachusetts and FitzPatrick in New York.
The other big development on the energy front is natural gas. Although the surge in the use of clean-burning natural gas has driven U.S. carbon emissions from power production to their lowest level in 22 years, you’d never know it from listening to the administration. Obama routinely ignores this important accomplishment or treats it as an inconvenience.
The U.S. is one of the few countries that has decoupled GDP growth from emissions growth. As the shale revolution demonstrates, the innovative use of new energy technologies along with improvements in energy efficiency not only reduce carbon emissions but also greatly benefit the nation’s economy.
Yet the administration continues to hamper natural gas production on public lands, while extending tax credits and incentives for solar and wind power, even though they’re not nearly as effective in carbon mitigation.
Renewables won’t be able to get us even halfway to achieving Obama’s target — reducing U.S. carbon emissions over the next decade to a level at least 26% below what they were in ’05.
Nuclear power and natural gas aren’t the problem. What should be recognized is that they’re actually two of the key energy sources that will cost-effectively reduce carbon emissions in the United States and worldwide.
Together with investments in advanced energy technologies, increasing the use of nuclear power and natural gas — as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy — could have a major impact on containing global greenhouse gases.
Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of finance and business economics at the University of Michigan-Flint’s School of Management.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1XWb7KG
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment