We All Have Our Demons

Yesterday, I read the latest issue of EnergyBiz (March/April 2010). A couple articles struck me as weaponizing the energy debate. I thought the debate was about how we engage a portfolio of resources and efficiency measures to meet our long-term energy needs in line with our environmental, independence, and economic goals.

What I "heard" was my stuff is cool and your stuff sucks.

When we have narrow-thinking in energy executives, policy makers, vendors, and trade media, we see lines being drawn stemming from a "scarcity mentality" (per Dr. Stephen Covey). We see friend and foe, and turn our thought-energy from creating new solutions to finding ways to demonize the perceived competition.

For example, in the article "Coal Vital to Economy" (which is true), by Keith Bailey, Chairman of Cloud Peak Energy, it states "there is no question that a policy designed to abruptly move us away from our traditional fuels will have serious negative impact." It also states that "even the green forms of energy such as wind and solar have a material negative impact on the environment." It also shares several other sound bites that, like these, are half-truths.

In another article, "Utilities Must Adapt or Fade," by Gary Stern, it relates a discussion at the 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk saying "...utilities that cling to coal and the status quo will fade; the energy companies that adapt to alternative energy will survive."

Another one, "Obama's Agenda," by Ken Silverstein relates how "the skeptics are also particularly concerned about the vilification of the coal industry that supplies more than half of the nation's electric generation mix." And, according to Prof. Robert Michaels at Cal State - Fullerton, "Any renewable energy mandates are unfounded, he says, noting that they cannot work and pointing to what he says is the California example."

I don't want you to focus on the mis-statements and half-truths here, because your emotions meter will climb and you will miss the point. The point is: we need to stop demonizing in-animate objects like coal plants and wind subsidies, and start forming a system's view of the solution (see the old NETL Modern Grid Initiative).

Continuing down the "demonizing" path leaves us polarized around solutions that anyone can point to as flawed. Why don't we consider the whole portfolio of potential solutions in a system's view and look for the best fit, enhancing the Pros and reducing the Cons?

Oh by the way, Mr. Bailey, last year federal subsidies for renewables were $23B, smart grid $4.5B, clean coal programs $10B, and oil and gas exploration and production $117B. I see only one demon here.

The Energy Guy

Welcome!

I welcome you to another energy blog, in case you're up late at night with nothing better to do.

You might find this one a little different because it's by an Energy Guy who works inside the "system" and sees lots of perspectives on a daily basis.

First, the real energy in our world is "not of this world", but that's another story.

What we will discuss here is common sense energy policy around the real "energy" business in our country. Our politicos and press equate energy to oil and gas, but rarely discuss the highly influential world of electricity. Highly influential? Yes, everyone in the nation is a user of electricity, but not everyone is a user of oil and gas. The reason politicos and press don't consider it worthy of discussion is that it is not volatile or linked to people who don't like us, as the "other" energy sources.

Well, out of necessity, electricity will become volatile and we see it becoming discussion-worthy, even with politicos and press.