Linc Energy Blog

National Security Picks and a war on 3 fronts…

We know about the threats to US National Security interests represented by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  President Elect Barack Obama has just named Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, and retired US Marine General James Jones as National Security adviser.  Something old, something new, something borrowed…it’s a great start to a new life for the Country…on the National Security Front at least.

But there is a larger threat to our National interests than the Taliban or the unrest in Iraq- the struggle for United States energy independence.  And thus far we have only engaged in a few skirmishes and a war of words.  The big battles lie ahead for our nation, for our economic recovery, and for the hearts and minds of the world.  

Yes, the world.   We must achieve energy independence  as a top priority to our National Security.  Energy Co-dependence leads to resentment.  It’s dysfunctional.   Just as any co-dependent relationship is.   We don’t have a functioning trade relationship with any of our major suppliers of oil.  Our oil imports contribute significantly to our massive trade deficit- the burden of which is now approaching 6% of our entire GDP.   This is not sustainable.  Every dollar we spend off-shore is a dollar less we can spend here.  The good news is that the deficit is shrinking.  The bad news is that the global recession will change that enormously.  The only drops in the deficit over the term of the Bush administration have been due to a weakened US dollar- making our products cheaper to purchase by foreigners.   The dollar weakened because the world saw us as a weakened economy (before the all out collapse of recent.)  Our continued importation of foreign oil will continue to drain the US economy.  We must put a stop to it soon.  

One of the most important appointments Obama can make in the next few months will be his National Energy Adviser.  And this person should be a part of his National Security Team.  The biggest threat to our security is not the Taliban.  It’s our continued importation of oil from people who do not have our best interests at heart.  New options exist. 

Options like wind, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear, geo-thermal, Clean-Coal, bio-fuels, ultra-clean diesel.  These are the allies that we must now embrace.  Let’s hope that Obama recognizes the importance of these options to our National Security.

Want a Nuke in your backyard?

There was a significant emphasis during the recent election campaign on the “energy crisis,” with John McCain, and President Elect Barack Obama, both claiming that Nuclear Energy would be a component of each of their comprehensive energy policies.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a scientific watch-dog organization says this on their website (www.ucsusa.org)under the title Nuclear Energy 101;

“The United States has strong safety regulations on the books, but the federal agency that oversees the nuclear industry—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—does not enforce them consistently. In addition, current security standards are inadequate to defend nuclear plants against terrorist attacks. A major accident or successful attack could kill thousands of people and contaminate large regions for thousands of years.”

Nearly 20% of our electricity in the United States is currently produced by Nuclear Reactors.  It’s been 29 years since the Three Mile Island disaster.  The technology has gotten safer.  Or has it?

This is a core question to explore over the next few weeks. 

With the recent economic melt-down in the US and abroad, the increased demand for electricity is likely to slow. Again, demand is likely to slow.  Not stop.  And our ability to meet that demand is stagnating as well.   Assuming that recovery from the recession we’re currently facing takes 5 years (the Great Depression lasted about 8 years, but we have made economic policy advances since then,) then by the time our demand for more electricity begins increasing once again, we would not have the permitting process completed for the single Nuclear Power Plant.   Construction of the plant requires between 4-8 years (nobody really knows- the last US built plant took almost 25 years to come online.)

The permitting process is (and I guarantee, will be) frequently interrupted by lawsuits filed to stop construction- although the NRC (see above) has “simplified” the permitting and licensing process.

Nuclear Power, on a scale which can add any reduction to our increased demand (the average Nuclear Power Plant will support only 100,000 homes,) is highly unlikely to occur in our lifetimes.  Each one will cost about $3 Billion USD to construct.   An enormous price tag for a questionable solution.

Are there real alternatives to Nuclear Power?   T. Boone Pickens is campaigning actively for a 4000 Megawatt wind farm.  CNN recently reported the details of Pickens’ plans (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa)

Pickens is claiming that 4000 Megawatts (being generated by wind turbines stretching from south Texas to the Canadian border) will power 1.4 million homes.   The Billionaire Oilman cites a 2007 Department of Energy study projecting that the United States could produce 20% of its electricity by Wind Power. http://www.energy.gov/energysources/wind.htm

According the interview by Charlie Rose on CBS 60 Minutes, Pickens’ Wind Farm project has a projected cost of about $10B USD. (www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546585n)

There are, of course other alternative sources of energy.  Google.org recently announced a $10 Million USD investment in Geothermal technologies. (blog.google.org/2008/08/enough-geothermal-energy-to-power-globe.html)

Solar Power is another long-standing stalwart in the alternative energy debate.  While there have been tremendous advances in conversion technologies (photovoltaic cells,) there are still significant challenges facing storage technologies to date.

Clean-Coal technologies are making progress in reducing the CO2, and other greenhouse gasses they produce.  Coal is the most ubiquitous energy source in the United States, with coal deposits representing a 6-fold greater energy potential than all US Oil and Gas reserves combined.   Yet many consider the term Clean-Coal to be oxymoronic.  CO2 is produced in any combustion reaction- and coal must be combusted to produce electricity.  However one very promising technology seems to be making headway:  Underground Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (UCG/CCGT)

The first company to attempt to commercialize this environmentally friendlier technology is based in Australia.  Linc Energy, Ltd has recently commissioned its Underground Coal Gasifier with the intention of building a pilot UCG/IGCC electrical power generation facility on its Chinchilla site in Queensland. (http://www.lincenergy.com.au/power.php)

As an interesting adjunct to the Linc Energy story, the company has recently begun the demonstration of its Coal to Liquids technologies for the creation of Sulfur-free, low emission, ultra-clean diesel fuel.

Traditional IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) electrical generation shows a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  A US based industrial consortium, FutureGen, (http://www.futuregenalliance.org) is attempting to build a near-zero emissions coal-fired power-plant utilizing IGCC and Carbon Sequestration technologies.  

There are clearly alternatives to Nuclear Power.  There will be an end to the recession.  There will be massive demand growth for energy worldwide.  We must explore those which make the most sense for both today and tomorrow.

Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal, Clean-Coal; all make immediate investment sense.  Nuclear Power proliferation doesn’t seem to have the compelling economics, the safety record, or the political support of the people whom it is proposed to serve.  There are alternatives.  Let’s explore those.