Policy experts question Obama energy pick Chu

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute doesn't approve of Mr. Chu because he'll be too strong a renewable energy advocate? Surprise, surpise. Mr. Ebell, "director of energy and global warming policy" thinks global warming is a hoax! This oil industry hack doesn't deserve to be quoted. Please, let's quote serious people from serious organizations. The new director of the U.S. Energy Department deserves a little more editorial respect than that. Please Washington Times do your homework. It sounds like Pres-elect Obama made a great pick.

No one is against "renewable" energy. The question is one of how we pick and choose the forms of energy we will develop and whether the energy source makes economic sense. The goal should be energy sources that don't have to be subsidized by the tax payer. After 30+ years of government funding, what do we have to show for that approach? Ethanol? Whatever we use, it has to compete with oil and natural gas, and those two are so far the most economical and convenient energy source we have easily available. Private companies such as Siemens and others have made great progress in wind turbine technology. But even wind has to have some repercussions. Creating power from wind means the atmosphere looses energy. I'd hate to find out that a huge Pickens wind farm somewhere out West robs the mid-west of the rain we need to grow our crops! Other companies like Oerlikon have come up with new solar cell technology to improve effiencies. The private market has been and will remain the best filter of what technologies have the best chance of competing against carbon based energy. That is all the CEI head is saying. And there is no such thing as man-made global warming. At least not to any extent we are being pushed to believe. Why do you think the Libs now refer to it as climate change?

Consider this: If 10% of California's energy were produced by wind turbines, it would require 10,000 1.5 MW generators, on 80 acres each. That equals 400 square miles of land. One foundry can produce 6 or 7 turbine housings per year. There is a world shortage of ball bearings. Gearboxes fail on wind turbines, and pieces weighing tons fly half a mile (that's why you need 80 acres). Few places have sustained wind speeds above 15 mph, required for efficient power generation. If wind speed falls below 14 mph, the electrical grid could be damaged. Consequently, "Smart-grid" needs to be built to control consumer demand. Smart-grid, a modern computer controlled power network, will extend a Home Area Network (essentially a LAN) into our homes to monitor all of our electrical devices, and permit the utility to turn off anything they think we don't need. Smart electric meters will allow utilities to bill power at different rates during the day. Smart water meters will allow the same billing opportunity, and will also report when you flush your toilet, how often, whether you wash your hands, how long you take a shower, whether you have a flow restrictor in place, and so on. Fines may be levied. How could they resist? All of this for "renewable" energy that probably can't be constructed anyway. But Smart-grid is supposed to be built first. Instead, we could build standard power plants. Power costs depend on capacity of economical generation. Prices rise when inefficient and expensive peak generators are brought on line. Currently, the fuel price is less important. We have kept per capita power consumption flat since 1975, but our excess capacity is now exhausted. Some of our aging power plants need to be replaced. We need serious energy, not fantasy. Energy drives our economy. Cheap, abundant, domestic energy will power us into a new Industrial Revolution. That can cut production costs, bring jobs back to our shores, and raise wages. Continuing to cut wages is a sure road to third world status. More energy we win, less energy we lose.