Energy

The past few days have shown more news about energy alternatives such as ethanol and biodiesel than in the past several years. Unfortunately, much of the talk has also included wind, solar, fuel cells, nuclear, and continued research and development on all of the foregoing alternatives. Now I am not against research and development, in fact I spent much of my career managing, directing, funding, and performing research and development. In these roles, I learned a few things about research and development and the scientist and engineers who work in research and development facilities.

First and foremost, the scientist and engineers who perform research and development are doing their job for which they are paid like any other person who has a job. Therefore, the vast majority of these scientist and engineers have the incentive to continually seek funding for their projects, and to justify continued research and development on their project(s). While companies and governments try to expedite deployment of the products of their research and development, the researchers are inclined to find reasons why research and funding should be continued. Companies are better at deployment of research products than government because they are motivated by profit. Government has a very difficult time deploying the products of their research. The government decision process is extremely complicated and cumbersome. It involves the researchers themselves, their management, the funding government agency from the project manager to his managers (some of whom are political appointees), sometimes the head of the agency or department, senior Executive Branch appointees, Congressional staff, members of Congress from various states who have interest for a variety of reasons including special interest groups and lobbyist, the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Science, state government agencies and state elected officials, and an array of independent experts (consultants) employed by all of the previously mentioned parties for advice on how to proceed. It does not end there. Depending on the research there may be input from the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Boards, etc. The foregoing should give you an idea why it is so difficult to make any progress deploying a research product.

Second, no one in government (at least rarely) wants to make the decision to move forward. There is a saying, "perfect is the enemy of good enough." That statement defines the the second problem. It's much easier to say "let's just do a little more research so we can be a little more sure we are doing the right thing." There are some exceptions to these managers who can't make a decision. I once had a boss, Charlie B., who is the only manager in my 34 years of research who made the decision to stop research and go forward with the implementation of a large project to dispose of some very toxic chemicals using one of several competing technology alternatives. I was one of several scientist and engineers urging Charlie B. to "do a little more research." We were extremely disappointed, and we were sure he was making the wrong decision. He was not wrong, and significant progress has been made in disposing of these toxic chemicals. In another case, a government appointee made a decision to stop the construction of a large waste treatment facility because the facility did not have the capacity to complete the entire job. That decision, to do more research and development resulted in this toxic material remaining untreated for 14 years, and the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars doing more studies, research and maintaining the storage facilities, not to mention the increasing threat these hazardous materials posed to the public. The treatment facility now under construction is costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and 14 years later the facility under construction still will not treat all of the waste.

Performing more research and development on alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol will get us no closer to energy independence. Only incentives to build an infrastructure (including production facilities, distributions systems, and to kick agriculture in gear to produce the raw materials) will get us on the road to energy independence.

Energy

Politics and policy are complicated (or real hard as GWB would say). They are intertwined with, and impact programs that are seemingly unrelated. For instance, Energy Policy impacts and is impacted by the War on Terrorism, Environmental Issues, and Agriculture, as well as other policy issues such as illegal aliens.

Why is it that politicians can't look at a set of facts, add the facts together to make a "real" decision (i.e., a decision that accomplishes something meaningful)? Might it be because when they define the facts very narrowly they can appeal to a specific constituency (such as envionmentalist) even though if you took the opportunity to add all of their individual statements together they just wouldn't make sense. Your elected representative might say, for example, "I support the war on terrorism," but when it comes to voting on energy policy they don't vote on provisions that would make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil because they want to protect the environment even though by not voting to make us less dependent on foreign oil we send millions of dollars overseas to fund the terrorist who want to kill us.

QUESTION TO ASK YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE - Is it more important to protect the environment (which may not be threatened at all anyway), or to protect us against terrorist who want to kill us (and did on 9/11)? I don't think you will get a straight answer.

The President acknowledged in the 2006 State or the Union speech that we get a large percentage of our oil from unfriendly nations. That means we send a lot of money to countries overseas that want to hurt us, and then those countries use the money we send them to fund terrorist so they can hurt us.

Our politicians delay solutions that can be easily implemented, and choose to spend our money doing more research. The President also said in the State of the Union speech that we had spent billions of dollars on researching alternative energy to make us energy independent. He said that there had been some exciting research done already, and that we were on the verge of making some dramatic breakthroughs. That's the same line we heard in the 1970's; so just name one of the breakthroughs that is currently saving us from dependency on foreign oil. THERE ISN'T ONE!

There ARE things that can be done now. We DON'T need to fund further research on some of these alternatives. Real people are actually using these alternatives. The technology is here (it's a start). There are companies producing these alternative fuels. There are individuals producing these alternative fuels. There are people using these alternative fuels. Two alternative fuels that can be used nationwide now to significantly reduce dependency on foreign oil are ethanol and biodiesel. Both come from agricultural products that we grow in the U.S., but we currently export a large percentage of these crops in order to create markets for U.S. farmers. We can create markets here for our farmers, and reduce dependency on foreign oil. I have personally made one of these alternative fuels that has been used for over 9,000 highway miles in an unmodified vehicle. This fuel cost about $0.65/gallon to produce (not including labor). This type of fuel is commercially available through limited retail outlets.

Laws can be implemented now that will encourage the production and distribution of these fuels. The Governor of New York has proposed some real solutions for his state that can be implemented now. Governor Pataki has identified immediate solutions such as lower taxes for alternative fuels, and rules to prohibit oil companies from obstructing distribution of these fuels. What is your state or federal elected representative doing to implement solutions now?

Why is it that Congress (Democrats and Republicans), and the President are so reluctant to implement practical energy alternatives, while the U.S. is under attack? Why is it that they are so willing to delay implementing alternatives, but willing to spend our tax dollars on more unnecessary research? Why is it that they are not encouraging legislation to improve markets for our farmers? I have a bunch more questions, but you can probably think of some yourself. Why don't you start asking those questions where it counts?

About This Site

The purpose of this site is for me to comment on news, and other topics from the perspective of federal employee in the Washington, DC area for 34 years.

At first glance (and last glance), one might think that there is no relationship to the first two items in the site's title (politics and policy) and the last (the mind). The mind, or more accurately thinking, really doesn't seem at all related to politics and policy to me.

Politicians, more often than not, expouse goals and propose policy that is not substantiated by the legislation they vote for or against. Voters, on the other hand, complain about their legislators but send them back to office over and over, then wonder why nothing changes. Voters send politicians back to office who have committed acts that if committed by any other man-on-the-street would demand prosecution. Case-in-point, Senator Edward Kennedy, MA.

Non-voters (of which there are too many) have absolutely nothing to complain about.

More to come . . .