I have only on occasion
agreed with Bill Richardson’s politics, but he undoubtedly has had a
distinguished career. His recent Op Ed in the Financial Times, “Shale falls short for US energy security” – seems right on the money.
Richardson lauds the
opportunity provided by shale. However, he makes the point that energy
independence and its allure of long-term strategic security cannot and should
not be attempted only through the use of Shale Energy (both natural gas and
oil).
Today, there is a tough
public policy debate about energy. Some advocate a move away from
renewable energy because of cost and reliability issues. They argue
against tax credits like the ITC and PTC. They favor repeal of the
various state portfolio standards and they oppose DOE and DOD grants for
renewable projects. This is an important debate and hopefully all sides
will embrace shale but also recognize its limitations. Long-term energy
independence and its corresponding security requires more than shale. It
will take all of our existing resources and perhaps even more.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/cc529a22-7b51-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fcc529a22-7b51-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=
1 comment:
For once in my life I agree with you! Though I do not like the current process of fracking to make good use of shale, I do realize its potential and useful benefits in the world of energy. However, there is always a limit. I feel as though people are trying to make shale a replacement for gas, which will just hurt everyone in the long run. Instead of looking for one thing to support us, we should be looking to a variety of resources to sustain our energy.
Post a Comment