BCT Editorial – 11/18/08

This page was last updated on November 18, 2008.

Painful withdrawal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 18, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Drilling for natural gas is a short-term solution at best.”

This editorial is an example of a trend I noted previously about energy sources. When it comes to energy sources currently practical and economically viable to provide the huge amount of energy we require, such as coal, hydro, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, are all unacceptable to the left. For example, this editorial asks “Is the potential damage to the environment worth a short 14 years of energy?” and the subtitle of “Easy does it” was “Push for nuclear power must not ignore its downside.” These are legitimate questions, but questions you won’t see the Times ask about “renewable, non-carbon-based fuels.”

When it comes to “energy conservation and the development of renewable, non-carbon-based fuels,” the left rarely mentions their pitfalls, including the fact their viability to provide large amounts of energy in an economic manner is currently beyond the horizon. For example, many of the same people who tell the rest of us to embrace wind power refuse to have wind turbines in their area because they are deemed to ruin the view, kill birds, and make too much noise. Here’s another example. The wind doesn’t always blow. From where do we get electricity when the wind isn’t blowing?

The editorial asserts it’s a “danger” to focus on “‘clean coal’ research” because it “draws attention away from what is really needed — energy conservation and the development of renewable, non-carbon-based fuels.” Why? I thought the Times goal was U.S. energy independence using “clean” energy. Apparently that’s not the case and the Times has some other agenda.

Here’s a prediction. As soon as what we today call “renewable, non-carbon-based fuels” become practical and economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy, the left will find a reason we shouldn’t use them.

Finally, here’s an “I told you so.” The editorial “Digging deep” supported drilling for natural gas in the “Marcellus shale formations.” In my critique of “Digging deep,” I noted this position appeared to be inconsistent with previous editorials with respect to “carbon-based fuels.” I wrote, “Perhaps the Times will recognize the inconsistency and publish an editorial opposing drilling for the natural gas unless all the carbon can be extracted and sequestered underground.” It took two months, but I was right, and wrong. The Times reversed its support of drilling for natural gas, but came up with a different reason than I predicted. Further, back in September I thought carbon sequestration would satisfy the Times. By opposing “‘clean coal’ research,” this editorial appears to indicate carbon sequestration won’t satisfy the Times even if it becomes economically and technically viable.