May 23, 2016

Transcending Energy Dependence

The debate over the use of fossil fuels and its effects on global warming tends to polarize American political factions, between those who would wage war on coal, oil, and natural gas and those who favor the "all of the above" solution.  Ideally, the goal of a clean energy world will be reached in the future to arrest global warming. It behooves America to be a world leader in this effort; by most accounts, the U.S. is responsible for some 20% of the world's air pollution.  Nevertheless, other growing nations like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), together with economic powerhouses like Japan, Germany, and England, far surpass America in the emission of global warming pollution.

Unilateral industrial disarmament is not the prudent course of action for America; instead, a gradual, multi-step energy transition offers the most sense.  The first step should be an aggressive exploit of American huge natural gas reserves, with the initial intent of replacing the use of diesel in all trucks and buses on U.S. roads.  T. Boone Pickens, the Texan oil tycoon, proposed this, along with other measures, over a decade ago, explaining that this move alone could eliminate the import of foreign oil.  American natural gas could also gradually replace the use of coal for electricity generation, while improvements in clean coal and coal gasification technologies could keep many coal miners at work; others will need retraining and reemployment.  An unleashed American energy sector would produce enough natural gas to supply our national needs, as well as to make America the greatest energy exporter in the world.  An abundance of natural gas would lower its price to the point of our competing oil and coal without tinkering with the free market system.  This logical transition from coal and diesel to natural gas would yield enormous benefits in pollution reduction, job creation, and balance of trade improvements.

A second step in the energy transition scheme is the development of concentric nuclear energy generation.  America has fallen behind in the development of this important source of energy since the near meltdown of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in 1979, which was closely followed by the Chornobyl Nuclear Plant disaster of 1986 in the old Soviet Union.  Most recently, the nuclear power issue has been withdrawn from the planning table following the 2015 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, which was caused by a Tsunami.  The concept of concentric nuclear power development I propose here would involve the construction of many nuclear plants with inter-connected and redundant water pumps, water storage, and electric generation emergency systems.  Thus, any overheating reactor could garner the cooling system resources of relatively nearby, interconnected sister plants.  Projects involving hundreds of square miles in remote locations in the country and the creation of electric transmission networks would bring massive economic development to those regions of the country.  While their remote locations would minimize risk and public opposition.  The issue of nuclear waste will eventually be solved by space ferrying systems to expel this material from Earth.   

The third step in our quest for energy independence would be the concentric development of wind power centers in fertile locations where natural rivers of wind have always existed, like in the central plains and offshore on the northeast coast of our country. Solar power and a myriad of low-tech energy projects would also gush throughout the nation once energy companies are forced to purchase citizens' developed electric power.

One day, not far into the future, electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells... and ultimately fusion power with the use of helium III mined on the moon will create an energy-rich environment for all.  However, today, America need not be energy dependent, nor poor and indebted anymore.



For more information visit my website at www.CarlosArce.net

Keeping the Eye on the Political Ball

More often than not, our average voter concentrates on the charisma or distastefulness of political candidates while losing sight of crucial issues.  In simple terms, our nation displays a polarized view on a number of key issues:  Do we need a balanced budget amendment, or can we continue to increase the national debt?  Do we stop undocumented immigration and then grant amnesty, or grant amnesty and then stop undocumented immigration?  Is the answer to inferior education more money or school choice?  Do we use natural gas to gain energy self-sufficiency and a cleaner environment, or ban fracking?  Do we first demand a level playing field in international trade or continue to sign free-trade agreements?  On and on, to be or not to be, that is the question?  

The Balanced Budget Constitutional Convention

The Balanced Budget Constitutional Convention

The national debt becomes a problem when we borrow to keep up with runaway entitlements, not for economic development or infrastructure projects.  Entitlements, once given by the elected official, can never be taken back without losing their next election; in fact, the opposite is true.  Hence, only a balanced budget amendment can arrest the budget deficit and control the national debt.  There is a hopeful sign on the horizon.  The U.S. Constitution in Article Five allows for the creation of a "constitutional convention," provided that it is requested by the legislatures 2/3 of the states, which today is 34 states.  An exciting initiative has already achieved the request by 29 states, and the remaining five can be obtained in five republic-dominated legislatures.  Congress has no say in this process, and after the amendment is written, it only requires approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures.  Congress would never get this done, but our founding fathers wisely provided for the alternative process in Article Five of the Constitution so that it can be done by "We the People."