Clinton’s energy plan
You did a fine job debunking Sen. Hillary Clinton’s energy proposals (OGJ, June 12, 2006, p. 19). Let me add just a couple of points. In the first place, it is possible to make a lot of different arguments sound plausible depending upon the time frame chosen. Her use of the period 1977-85 appears to be neatly designed to avoid the oil price collapse in 1986. Inclusion of data after 1986 reinforces your assertion that market prices had a lot more to do with this conservation than government regulations.
Secondly, while the average fuel economy of the US passenger car fleet improved from 14.1 mpg in 1977 to 17.5 mpg in 1985, it is unclear how much of this was driven by corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and how much by purchase decisions in response to rising fuel costs. It is also worth noting that the average miles each car was driven dropped from 9,517 in 1977 to 9,419 in 1985. Clearly, this was a response to higher fuel costs, not government regulation.
Finally, before Hillary credits the drop in oil consumption entirely to conservation, she should look at the electric power sector. Oil consumption (distillate plus residual) for electrical energy generation dropped from 624 million bbl in 1977 to 173 million bbl in 1985. This drop was facilitated in no small measure by the 29 new nuclear generating units brought on line during this time frame. Nuclear power generation increased from 251 billion kw-hr in 1977 to 384 billion kw-hr in 1985. Perhaps Hillary would like to suggest to her environmental backers that Congress mandate construction of new nuclear power reactors.
Donald F. Anthrop
San Jose State University
Fossil energy future
David Nakamura’s Journally Speaking article brings out very shining points if one reads between the lines (OGJ, May 22, 2006, p. 15). Finally, agreement is spreading that fossil energy can’t yet be condemned with hype about replacing it with “sustainable energy” sources, as reported by the Columbia University Earth Institute researchers in Nakamura’s article. I would have argued very strongly about the notion that nuclear and solar energy sources couldn’t significantly help the developing nations in Asia and Africa, even if cost and safety issues were addressed.
I sense growing recognition, even on the political left, that there is no near-term shortage of fossil fuel. The reason, of course, is that very smart, risk-taking, frontier-spirited explorationists, like yours truly, in America and elsewhere keep discovering new reserves in places where once no one thought oil and gas could be found.
I would have requested that Nakamura spell out clearly how left-leaning politicians in South America (Bolivia to Venezuela) are renationalizing natural resources solely based on political idealism that has never worked in favor of their poverty-stricken citizens. And some of our representatives in the US House are talking about government control of the refining sector. Who says the voice of Uncle Fidel is not heard by leftist sons of Uncle Sam?
S.K. Bhattacharjee (Kumar)
President
Sita Oil Exploration House Inc.
Houston
