On The Media

Why doesn't Mr Fiderer define the problem as 'getting off oil entirely" instead of as achieveing 'energy independence." E.g. Of course electricity PRESENTLY has nothing to do with running cars, but if we spend research on developing electric cars, it might. So long as he makes the problem the fact that we are "depedent on foreign oil," we continue to find our only solution in actions that pollute the planet.

Remember, when the combustion engine auto was first invented, it could not travel very far either, and anyone wanting to take a long distance trip has to pack their own fuel.

When we turn our R & D energies towards finding alternative, clean fuels, we will soon have an infrastructure to support it.

I came on to excoriate Fiderer for his comment about nuclear being about generating electricity and oil about transportation and therefore one having nothing to do with the other (Kate (above comment) hit it, but I think not hard enough). Hello!! Electric cars? Ever heard of them? And oil heat vs. electric? Ring any bells? Most grade school kids are aware of these possibilities, yet Bob says nothing. Incredible. And don't give me anything about the minimal distance, speed etc. of electric cars. Can you imagine the savings if only those people that do relatively short commutes all had electric cars and electricity were more plentiful and cleaner? So what if electric cars cannot do cross country right now. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

This is not to debate whether nuclear is the way to go, it could be wind, solar, anything that generates electricity. Fiderer's reasoning would say none of those are helpful. Truly, one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard. Which is a shame, because he is exactly right about offshore drilling and the lack of meaningful impact it will have. But I have seen numerous articles and comments in the press pointing this out, so I think his whole premise is flawed. Bob, why not do some homework before these guys come on so you can set the record straight? Oh that's right, this guy is a liberal. You only do that with conservative commentators.

The numbers that would make an interesting subject for investigation are these "7-10 year" claims the drilling programs proposed today contrasted with the Energy Bill the president submited to Congress in 2001.

If that 2001 Bill was passed in its original form (including ANWR drillin etc), that year, what would be the result today in terms of energy supply/demand.

David Fiderer incorrectly asserted that electricity cannot substitute for oil in transportation. Has he never heard of electrified railroads? Urban rail transit? Trolley buses? Electrically powered subways?

Granted, there is little electrified transportation in the US, but much of the rest of the developed world -- and increasing numbers of developing countries -- have extensive electrically powered urban and intercity transportation for both passengers and freight. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is electrically powered and carries more than 50% of the air/rail passenger traffic between New York City and Washington DC. Dozens of US cities have recently built electrified light rail transit routes; dozens more are actively seeking to build such services.

Fiderer and the interviewer collaborated in perpetuating the same tired old distortions used by NPR for years. Fiderer's arguments were: 1) drilling cannot solve the problem immediately, so it's worthless. Is this the standard they apply to solar and wind, etc.? No, there they advocate year after year of fruitless research. 2) drilling alone cannot bring independence from Middle East oil, so it's worthless. So, using oil that does not come from the Middle East will not add to independence from Middle East oil? And, the interviewer just accepts this idiocy as if it were pearls of wisdom from some guru.

A Huffington Post Blogger complaining about people leaving reality out of the picture? That's Rich!

First, as several others have said, it was quite frustrating and ironic to listen to your guest critique 'the media' for not getting and reporting the facts on energy policy, and giving as an example the 'fact' that expanding nuclear could in no way address dependence on (foreign) oil. There are already people driving around in plug-in hybrids converted from existing Priuses, and Chevy, Nissan, and Toyota are all issuing bold targets for off-the-lot plug-ins that can meet 80% of Americans' daily car use without using a drop of gasoline, and the NRDC and others are actively promoting these vehicles as a way to get our emissions down.

I would add, however, that we certainly don't need, and shouldn't be pursuing, NUCLEAR as the way to fuel those cars. NRDC calculations show that if most cars are recharged at night, the existing grid can almost handle a full fleet conversion. In any case, we can expand the electricity supply and even replace our *existing* fossil-fuel-based electricity mix with CO2-free *baseload* power using Concentrating Solar Power (CSP -- please don't further fail in your reporting by confusing this with photovoltaics and ask what to do when the sun isn't shining!) combined with high-voltage DC transmission -- for less money, in less time, than we can do with nuclear -- and of course, without the hazardous waste.

I just want to second the comments about transportation energy being separate from electric generation.

Fiderer is correct in asserting that today the U.S. uses very little imported oil for electricity generation and that petroleum prices have little to do with the cost of heating a home.

But with the ascendence of hybrid cars and the promises being made for plug-in hybrids, it's perfectly conceivable that the U.S. will need a great deal more electric generation in the near future, which nuclear power provides. Of course, there are many issues with nuclear power that are open to debate, but Fiderer seems to ignore the potential growth in electricity demand from electrified cars.

Mr David Fiderer comments about nuclear power and transportation contains within the error that transportation in the future will necessarily look like it does now.

There are at least two scenarios where we will need more electricity to power our cars. The first scenario is electric cars like the ones that can be purchased from Telsa or soon from Chevy (called the Volt).

The second scenario is the "Pickens Plan" that calls for generating more electricity from other sources and using natural gas to power our cars.

This lack of foresight on the part of Mr. Fiderer seems in evidence in the comments about off-shore drilling as well. The country will need oil in 5-10 years, so drilling is still valuable.

The fact that OTM let Mr. Fiderer's comments on electricity and automobiles pass without qualification is very disappointing.

There is no DIRECT connection between nuclear power and oil ie you can't use nuclear power to make oil directly. But the indirect usage of cheap power to run cars and turn coal and natural gas into usable liquid fuels, and process oilshale and tar sands, could be termendous.

And by the way: future nuclear power would be much cheaper if we used the "cookie cutter" approach to building plants as most of the rest of the world has used successfully.

The politicians also stopped all important research 20 years ago when everyone said that these projects would not pay off until oil reached $100 a barrel, and what a foolish thought that was when our oil was sold to us by thinly veiled enemies and had to float across thousands of miles of ocean to reach us.

Another fallout of government stopping research: the VOLT. This car used lead acid battery technology, the very same as used in the last production American electric car: the Baker--1911

Mr. Kay,

"the Volt... lead acid battery..."

I am a little confused did you mean EV1 and lead acid battery? The Volt is using Li-Ion battery, perhaps from A123 Systems in Watertown MA that has been supported by government money.

Later

John C. Briggs

It's times like these when I wish Bob would interview people other than those with whom he agrees. Here's a complicated enough issue that requires more perspectives than just Bob's and the guy echoing him.