Solving Solar, and then Some

Solar and Innovation

Irregardless of your view on the solar industry there is a statistic out there that will support your claim.  As different companies try to develop studies to get the information they want; as the same information is gathered using different means; there is always different information.  Are solar panels 8% or 20% efficient.  Is China undercutting pricing so other countries cannot compete?  Has solar power reached parity with other forms of generating electricity?  It takes an expert studying the subject full time to be able to interpret all the data available.  Can you trust the expert who is reporting the data?  Who pays him?  What were his sources of information?  My goal is to convince you of a particular direction for the solar industry without you having to make many assumptions.

2008 was a depressing time in America.  The economy was tanking.  The housing market and auto industries were on the brink of collapse.  When asked how America would cope going into the future, the frequent answer from political pundits and financial analysts was ‘American innovation’.  (Oh no, he’s going into politics.  Profanity involving Obama and Solyndra are spewing from the conservatives’ heads like puss from a canker sore.)  I agree, it is not the best practice for the government to get into capital investments.  It is not ideal when the majority of new companies are likely to struggle, when any corporate connection will be analyzed by every news channel for weeks and sit on the skins of voters like a bad rash (resulting in the canker).  But that was how this term tried to spur innovation when most other investment paths had dried up.  The result was a backlash that may have set back the solar industry with all the controversy.  The common accepted belief is that the US has the most advanced solar tech, but other countries, China and Germany, are adopting it faster and exporting it at a faster rate.  If they are getting more profits from it, then their industry is going to be driven by better products that will reach parity faster what does that imply?  Other countries will be the leaders in this growing industry.  

Where is America’s innovation?  The American innovative spirit is what has been indoctrinated in several political speeches as the saving grace for the economy.  So where can it show up?  The auto industry?  Don’t worry, nothing too hurtful to be said here.  Sure there can be small improvements in the overall design of a standard car.  The components can be more efficient, but that is not the type of innovation that drives a country.  The hybrid and plug-in hybrid variants have potential.  But people respond slowly to justifying the cost.  If you want to sell products that are in demand across the globe look to solar.  Solar has the characteristics needed to drive innovation.  

That is why the statistics do not matter about whether there is cost parity or how much more efficient it is in an area.  Globally there is demand and America cannot afford to take the back seat while other countries drive solar revolution.

Solar and Immigration

Now for something different; let’s talk immigration.  Remember when Newt Gingrich promised an electrified fence at the border if he were elected President.  That does not have to be such a horrible idea.  (And my friends say I’m an over-zealous Obama supporter)  I discussed immigration with a co-worker at a previous job.  His name was Fortino.  He was very clear and concise and in very short order convinced me that no action should be taken to change immigration.  In short, if you deport all illegal immigrants, prices skyrocket, good bye re-election.  If you open the borders there would be a rush of people into the country that would be abhorred by the average American for taking jobs that would otherwise be available.  The goal of any immigration law should not be to impact immigration, but rather to diminish drug routes into America and restrict the means of getting arms into Mexico from America.  

By itself solar is a tough sell.  But if it is able to be incorporated into the cost of another project it could become a worthwhile investment.  I propose that the US and Mexico work out a deal to build an electrified fence; not one that will electrocute people, but rather one that will send power into both countries.  The greatest benefit will be if Mexicans build and sustain the fence and American companies provide the solar panels for it.  The location is ideal to achieve maximum efficiency in solar panels.  The quantities would drive profits and innovation to ensure America can hold its own.  Since Mexicans would then have greater opportunities for gainful employment there will be less reason to go into gangs.  Communities would spring up on both sides of the fence across the entire border.  Instead of necessarily a physical fence you have the fence of a community watch.  There is then a reason to put in a highway system that runs from the Pacific coast to the Gulf of Mexico.  This allows quick maintenance of the fence and allows any illegal activities to more easily be caught.  There is then a reason to have police to protect the towns that spring up and the security to protect the power companies.  These forces would take on some if not all of the duties of the border patrol.

In recent news, the Obama administration set a solar road map that opens up large extents of land for utility scale solar projects.  Details can be found in this LA Times article.  Maybe he is on his way to build an electric fence.  It would be a great zinger in the up coming debates with Romney.

Solar Versus Nuclear

Several people turn to nuclear power as an answer to energy dilemmas.  However, the risks of nuclear power are far too great in my opinion.  Nuclear waste storage and fallout would be the most common.  If you eliminate the need for nuclear energy you also eliminate the largest reasons governments give for having uranium enrichment capabilities.  Eliminating the need for nuclear power would eliminate the largest reason any country would have for a facility that could potentially manufacture nuclear warheads.  Yes, there are still medical reasons for it, but as contrarian evidence I only need to quote the world renowned Dr. McCoy.  "It's the God Damned Spanish Inquisition!"

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Dr. McCoy confronts other doctors on their primitive practices

The claims that every part is inspected and designed to such incredible safety tolerances that nothing can possibly go wrong have also never set well.  That was said of the original nuclear reactors.  Now, after a few fallouts and several close calls, new designs are being developed that are purportedly safer.  

• List of Nuclear Accidents and Incident
• Bill Gates and his interest in nuclear technologies
• Discussion of Germany's response to a nuclear disaster

However, the problem is not the parts.  It is the people.  If a reactor gets built cities will spring up around it.  Gradually more and more strain will be put on it.  Eventually there is a dense population that relies on the continuous surge of power.  The people that work there may go through mundane drills to stay ready for any occurrence, but the relaxation will eventually set in as they rely on the notion that nothing can go wrong or some light would tell them what needs to be done.  As a cost saving measure the power company  may try to cut some corner.  Those 3 factors, population density, false sense of ease, and increasing profits will all act together when something does happen.  So when and if a disaster does happen, millions of people must spontaneously be relocated.  The land is rendered useless for centuries.

An alternative solution has also been sought after.  Nuclear fusion; the same processes evident in every star.  It still harnesses the energy stored inside atoms, but it does it in a way that results in no toxic waste and is so unstable that if something did go wrong in the reactor the entire process would just stop.  I have heard it said recently (sorry, don't remember the source) that 2 gallon jugs of water would provide the energy equivalent of an oil tanker.  On the opposite side of the topic, in the study of fusion, there has yet to be a system that can be run continuously and produce a net energy.  The attempts have consumed more than produced.  20 years down the road and billions of dollars later I can see a scientist approach his funders and say something along the lines of, "Well guys.  It's a funny thing.  Turns out nuclear reactions simply obey the laws of conservation.  Split atoms and get energy.  Fuse them, well, and lose energy.  Sorry."  Net energy gains are the ultimate goal, but reading into it, it looks like intermediate successes with controlling plasmas that could result in advanced technologies elsewhere.  Nuclear fusion makes for such a great sales pitch I have one of my own to present.

Dear Powers that Be,

          The research my company has conducted indicates that implementing nuclear fusion in space will eliminate the continuation and instabilities of current ground based research facilities.  The result of which will certainly produce an influx of energy.  We propose to initiate an orbital satellite around Earth and to beam the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation back to a distributed ground network of collectors.  The projected cost is estimated to only be $5 million (Less than .1% of current fusion research).

                                           Regards,
                                           Justin Newsome
                                           President and CEO, Solar Hijinks Inc.

Once funded, install a nice solar panel system on the house I would have just bought.  Contract is technically met.  Then, save the remaining $4 million  for the lawyers needed once the Powers that Be realize the scam.

Back From Vaca: Energized

Somehow, since I got back from vacation I have been waking up before the alarm.  This in itself is amazing because I am not a morning person; AT ALL!  But that is a side note.  While I felt awake and energized, the energy of interest to me is the noticeable differences in production between the States and in Germany, the country I just came back from.  

When passing a small town there would be 1 or 2 houses that would utilize roof mounted solar panels.  Just from my own estimation, eyeballing it, I would guess 5% of homes were set up.  Barns utilized it much more.  Several would have every square inch, or centimeter, covered. And while driving on the Autobon, several plots of land were utilized as solar farms.

Several Homes Utilized Solar Energy.  Sorry for the flash.

Barn Roof Entirely Covered with Solar Panels.

A Solar Farm Along the Autobon.

Another source came from wind turbines.  Contrary to the opinions of many people, I did not view them as an eye sore.  The placement, fluid shape, and overall structure give them a feel that they would be as out of place as a flower in nature.  When several of them are in motion together it adds the appeal of a choreograph.  

There was a point as we were on the highway that we passed a truck next to the road hauling one of the massive propellers.   It looked like an impossibly long burden for the truck to maneuver.  A few miles farther we saw the stalk of an unfinished wind turbine.  Rather than beauty this time, the main emotion was one of engineering accomplishment perhaps akin to an ancient society erecting a monolith.  

Most of the time all were busy supplying power to their people.  There was however a still day where little motion could be observed and that gave the feeling of a wilting flower, or of someone tripping on stage, and most importantly to the majority of people, of their tax dollars being wasted.  This is the tragedy of the human condition.  Even though I witnessed them producing energy most of the time, people will treat the seldom wasted hours like a friend after a horrible spat.  It is irrational, but we focus on the negatives and destroy a beneficial relationship.

The Single Flower

The Choreographed Dancers

A Modern Monolith

One of the major topics on the news in Germany was referred to as Energiewende, or 'Energy Revolution'.  In 2010, the parliament passed legislation to extend the life of 14 nuclear reactors.  The following year, after the Fukushima nuclear fallout disaster, Chancellor Merkel took action to reverse that decision.  The new regulation would phase out nuclear reactors.  Renewable subsidies would also be phased out, and instead, a system of punishments and rewards would be placed on companies.  Those that have a large negative impact on the environment would be taxed greater while companies that make efforts to lessen their impacts would be taxed less.


The move seems beautifully handled.  As I said, my calibrated eyes saw about 5% of residential houses had some form of solar power implemented.  Without having much quantitative reasoning behind this, that seems like a good time to phase out subsidies.  By that time, an individual is no longer an oddball, environmentalist nut taking chances on an unproven industry.  It gives the nudge to spur initial corporate interest in pursuing solar development, and as the residential subsidies are phased out, corporations begin to take interest in installing solar systems themselves.


It gives Germany the push to become a major competitor in an fledgling market.  In a world where oil and gas reserves will be gone in a hundred years* this push will likely be a great investment.  Yes, I am an American swooning over the energy practices of Deutschland.  The timing of the disaster allowed it to be politically possible for a time.  I applaud Merkel's current actions.  The headlines are already questioning her move towards a sustainable energy future.  Her personal question will be how to sustain her demographic in the coming years.


* The claim of 'a hundred years' of oil and gas reserves deserves justification to avoid being misrepresented (in the year 2100).  Several years back there were statements that only 10, only 20, only, 50 years of oil and natural gas are available.  A more accurate disclaimer would likely read along the lines of, 'There are only a hundred years of oil and natural gas available assuming we maintain current profit margins, do not sacrifice new lands or the environmental standards of current areas, and use the current existing common methods.'


Miraculously as more and more headlines were developed discussing the approaching limits of our fossil fuel growth a new technology was trumpeted as the savior of all our energy needs.  Hydraulic fracturing has been practiced for decades now.  However, in large practice it was not economically as appealing as more traditional methods and polluted the environment more per BTU generated.  Rising fuel costs got high enough and the technology progressed far enough (after decades) that it finally became justifiable.  (Sounds like a similar situation to the solar industry doesn't it)


There is an on going land grab for the arctic.  With so much ice it is difficult to get at the vast swaths of land that are all but gushing with oil.  However, the ice caps are showing signs of retreating.  So every year it becomes a more plausible option for the oil tycoons to pursue.  Plus, it would make a great documentary for the environmentalists.  Instead of showing the usual scenes of oil wells 50 feet from a family's house as companies take advantage of subsurface land rights, or ghost towns that are oil soaked deserted wastelands, the white arctic ice sheet would offer a nice contrast.


Oceanic drilling is another popular option.  By having pumps out at sea where few eyes can see, few mouths can question, and few media can be heard; companies have much less to fear.  The corporate risk, which in effect CEO's are bound by law to follow to maximize benefit to the shareholders, is much less than the risks posed to the environment.


So, 'a hundred years' is a very speculative term.  Many assumptions are made to arrive at it.  There is no need to worry that families in the future will have a shortage of fossil fuels.   That is of course, as long as you are willing to make other sacrifices.


UP NEXT- GOOGLE I/O: A LOGOS FOR GOOGLE
PREVIOUS-  BACK FROM VACA: ENERGIZED
PREVIOUS- Introducing Me, Myself, and I - A Social Media Multiple Personality Disorder

Natural Gas Boom: "Split Estate" Summary

This is the final part of the Natural Gas Boom series.  The first post described fracking and the actions taken in NC regarding it.  The second post discussed my own personal opinions on the matter.  This post summarizes the Aperture cinema movie "Split Estate" and the presentation that followed.  When a friend asked, "Will the film be biased," I didn't want to give a resounding yes.  So instead I said, 'I don't know, but I can tell you it is sponsored by Clean Water for North Carolina.'  This pretty much gave the answer since organizations typically have to be extremely biased and use strong wording to get through to a society that is largely apathetic.  I felt that my opinions on fracking expressed in the last post took both sides in to reasonably consideration.  Despite the tendency for organizations to come off sounding extremist we both, Clean Water for NC and myself, essentially came to similar centrist conclusions; that there is no need to rush to action when so much risk is involved. 

"Split Estate" Summary

A split estate situation occurs because land is treated differently than the subsurface resources.  When you purchase your property, your mortgage may or may not include the resources below the land.  D.R. Horton made national news when they sold property to individuals that excluded the mineral rights.  They then sold those to interested companies.  They returned the rights to the property owners as pressure built against them.  People that own both may set up a contract with companies to sell or lease the mineral rights.  

Trailer for "Split Estate"

Throughout the film are several instances of oil execs denying that their practices caused any harm and then you see all the harm that it actually did cause.  Rivers look carbonated with all the gas coming from under the ground.  In areas where the bubbles come up, holding a match close by resulted in a localized, small explosion.  Contaminated water supplies led to several diseases.  Some families simply resolved to not drink the water.  However, breathing VOC's (Volatile Organic Compounds) while taking showers is actually just as bad, if not worse, as drinking it.  It would be difficult to get treatment for the different symptoms because each company's fracking fluid is considered proprietary information, and thus people cannot know what chemical is actually poisoning them. 

Another frequent theme is that the companies would not offer to help without significant legal threat and would provide contracts heavily worded in their own favor.  A family that lived down wind of several of the drilling platforms had to move from their home.  Several people ended up having the platforms placed only a little more that 100 feet from their homes.

There were also several good gotcha moments when high level corporate execs were caught lying, denying, or (to avoid libel) were just ignorant of their products.  For instance, one would say all that is in our product is water, sand, and wood pulp.  That certainly sounds proprietary.  Then there is a long list that shows over 200 ingredients that constitute the fluid, many of which are known to have serious negative health impacts.

Post Movie Presentation Summary

The movie below comes straight from Clean Water for NC's website.  It does a great job of quickly summarizing their stance on the issue. 

Website Presentation by Clean Water for NC that Explains Their View of Fracking

The images below depict where fracking could take place.  Comparing the two images goes back to my last post about prioritizing when and where fracking should take place.  It does not seem like there should be a need to immediately start fracking in NC when there are large swaths of land that could be utilized first that would pose much less risk.

Locations in North Carolina where Drilling would Take Place.

Locations in the US Where Drilling is Taking Place or is Being Considered

Interviewing Katie Hicks of Clean Water for North Carolina

Me:

I attended the movie/presentation and was actually able to get some of my friends to attend.  I was shocked cause it seems few people ever want to get involved in anything.  I have some questions and I would like to include the answers in my next blog post.  My blog is The Techno Post.  If you have any comments you would like to include regarding my last posts feel free to include.  I'm interested to hear.  Really, feel free to add any comments, post related or not.  Thank you for taking time to answer my questions.

Katie:

Hi, Justin! It was great to meet you.Thanks for your thorough list of questions and for sending us the link to your blog.  I'll look forward to following it!

I've included some brief responses in blue below. I hope it will be helpful. The attached power point presentation has a lot of good information, though I didn't have the time to present it on Thursday. You can find a lot of links on the subject on our Fracking Resources Page for further information, too! 

The Attached Power Point Presentation

Me: 1.  The response of my friends after the movie was that it was a little extreme.  Numbers are frequently used that either scare people or do not mean anything too them.  I find percentages help convey meaning better.  Do you have any percentages that could be used to indicate the scale of the problem?  For instance, % of wells that have caused environmental issues.  % of land area utilized by fracking companies that has been negatively impacted. % of water supplies contaminated.  A website with heat maps would also be a good way to show this sort of info if you know any good links.

Katie: The film, released in 2009, relies on personal resident stories, many of which are worst-case scenarios, for two reasons - documentarians favor this kind of storytelling, but also, as of 2009 there were no comprehensive studies of environmental and health impacts. In fact, there STILL isn't this kind of information...since the gas industry is exempt from many environmental laws data just hasn't been collected on these impacts through time. State reporting requirements vary widely. I would check out this article from ProPublica for more information, and there is definitely more peer-reviewed research out there now than there was in 2009 (check our website) but in summary I think you're hitting on one of the biggest problems with this industry - we just DON'T have enough information or data on how widespread the threat is yet.

 

Me: 2.  One of the conclusions in the movie was that companies can incorporate new clean technologies to minimize their impact and harm.  Do you have any comment on that?  Would you be more inclined to be for fracking in NC if you knew those measures were put in place?
 

Katie: Short answer: potentially, but CWFNC and our community partners have little to no expectation that those kinds of technologies will be perfected, tested, and proven without a doubt to be safe for communities on a short-term time scale. However, NC is considering legalizing fracking in the very short term, which is why we have been encouraging a very slow, cautious approach to removing our state's protections from fracking. See CWFNC's Board's statement on hydraulic fracturing. 

 

Me: 3.  A frequent comment is that it is worth the risk to answer our energy issues.  I know you touched on this topic in your presentation.  Please go over this and include any links for people interested in making their homes more efficient.  Are there any NC initiatives or incentives for this?
 

Katie: Yes! Please check out NC SAVE$ ENERGY, a campaign to create a statewide, independently administered energy efficiency program that would weatherize homes and other buildings. Specifically, take a look at the report at the top of this page which shows how other states have used similar programs successfully. 

 

Me: 4.  It was mentioned that energy costs would not necessarily be reduced because oil and natural gas resources frequently get exported to maximize profits.  I thought there was more of an issue exporting natural gas.  I don't want to say this made fracking for natural gas more appealing, but rather that it would better address the cost of energy in the US.  This topic is unclear to me.  Could you explain and/or offer links to help?
 

Katie: I'd start by reading this article from February. Of course, transporting natural gas in itself is a risky process! My understanding is that we're producing so much of it right now that this has led the administration to want to export a lot of it. 

 

Me: 5.  I have heard a variety of claims that try to say fracking is not the problem, it is the other processes involved that cause the harm.  One version of this is that it is not the cracks that form that contaminate water sources but rather equipment at the surface failing that cause the contamination.  Another version of this says that it is a problem with storing the fracking fluid that is at issue.  Too me, saying a part of the process of fracking is a problem is the same as saying fracking itself is a problem.  Do you have any information on where the issues actually are?  How frequent the different processes actually do fail?
 

Katie: I think when a lot of people use the term "fracking," they often are really speaking about the whole process: fracturing, horizontal drilling, injection, the equipment used...it's definitely confusing, but I think you're right that various components of the overall process are more problematic than others. We've heard a lot about poor well installations and failed casings. There are a few slides on the specific failures in the attached powerpoint.

 

Me: 6.  The defense of the earthquakes that result is that they are so micro scale that no one even feels them.  Is there any evidence of this?  Have people reported feeling earthquakes that were likely caused by fracking?  Do you think, or do you know other professional organizations that think, there is potential for larger ones.

 

Katie: Here's an article about the 4.0-scale quake in Ohio, which was stronger than previous ones in Ohio (these were caused not by fracking but by injection of fracking waste for disposal).  There is currently some seismic testing going on in various states. As to whether quakes could be bigger, I can't speak to that, but you may be able to find some resources from geology experts. I personally don't think about earthquakes as one of the more serious threats currently, but it also depends what is nearby the fracking operations - for example, nuclear facilities or other facilities that could have huge impacts if a quake hit them. 

 

Me: 7.  In terms of producing energy efficiently and cleanly, natural gas wins out over coal.  Are there any estimations about how many coal plants would be displaced by introducing locally acquired natural gas? 

Katie: Here's an article on why natural gas won't really address climate change any better than other fossil fuel products. I am not aware of any such projections but the information may be out there, however, as it's currently done natural gas is not being used locally where it's drilled, but being transferred to other regions via pipelines. That's my own understanding, anyway. 

 

Me: 8.  I recently read that in India there is a project underway to mount solar panels over lakes and reservoirs to prevent evaporation.  Here is a link discussing what I described.  Would NC ever do anything like this to help with water shortages and energy supplies?

 

Katie: Wow, how interesting, I hadn't heard of that! I can't speak to what NC might do in the future, but new and creative ideas to address our water and energy problems are definitely going to be important.

Natural Gas Boom: My Take

North Carolina is in the middle of a battle to determine whether or not hydraulic fracturing should be allowed.  I have mixed feelings about having the industry here.  I have seen Gasland and for a long while after, I was entirely against it.  I watched the news coverage of the BP oil fiaso, and am aware of numerous other oil disasters.  Here is a list that takes you to just before the BP incident.  People have said that because there is so much redundancy in a nuclear power plant and because every deail is picked over so intently that nothing can go wrong.  Here is a list of nuclear incidents you likely would not have heard about in mainstream media.  A study is taking place to see how feasible hydraulic fracturing would be for North Carolina.  The study, which can be found here, preliminarily reports that with proper regulation fracking can be prosperous.  Even without the lists of examples of how bad and/or even good regulation fails to prevent incidents, many people readily admit how ill equipped government is to ensure the best interests of its populous.

I took this picture at AMNH during a trip to New York because it was loaded with irony.  I feel it highlights the contradictions people set up around themselves as they try to resolve energy conflicts.

On the other hand, I am aware of the current state of the renewable industries, the free-for-all as everyone tries to come up with the next most efficient product, the lack of standardization that makes committing to 1 company unnecessarily risky, and the small percentage of renewables currently in use.  In this TED talk, T Boone Pickens, makes a good argument of using natural gas as a bridge to the future.  

T. Boone Pickens' Lecture at a TED talk

However, even Pickens admits that he does not know where the bridge goes.  He admits repeatedly, jokingly, that the future is not his problem.  He is right, it is not his problem.  It is everyone elses’.  If he has children then it is their problem.  I believe solar energy along with the necessary advances in battery technology will be developed and competitive enough that as fossil fuel demand increases the total energy supply will not be an issue.  Also, since the supply will be diversified the industry will be more elastic.  Energy supply will not be the problem.

  

Lack of funding is the problem.  Because the need for an alternate fuel source will not be great enough once fracking has been deemed our energy savior, investments in renewable energy sources will pull back.  Other countries, tired of suckling to a single fuel line from a single country and hurting from payment of exorbitant fees will take the lead.  America, the great innovator, is in some ways already lagging behind the likes of China, Germany, and Brazil.  Those countries will only be the beginning.  Fuel crises continually arise as a single fuel pipeline cuts through several European/Eurasian countries.  The benefit of being self reliant is too great for many of these countries to ignore.  If America does not take the lead in innovation in addition to being indebted to OPEC nations we will have a whole other host of nations to rely on.

As hurtful as it is to say, America needs hard times.  Those hard times are what drives invention.  People cry to go back to the fuel bottle, but they must be weaned off it to grow past our present predicaments.  T Boone Pickens portrayed himself to be a neglectful parent, both to his children and to his country by acknowledging there is a problem and refusing to address the issue.  

There are people that say you would be eliminating thousands of jobs by introducing a dramatic change in industry.  Not so much eliminating, as displacing.  The jobs that would be lost producing fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems would be gained in the renewable industry and in developing new infrastructure to support it.  If this is a dramatic and sudden change, yes, the change would be devastating.  To prevent any sudden changes, it is perfectly fine to proceed with some natural gas extraction, but ensure funds are raised and location is considered to mitigate the environmental risks.

Contracts can have terms set that would either force an up front cost and/or to resolve any issues.  There have been legal obligations in the past, although were they enough?  A decade after the Exxon Valdez spill digging 6” into sand at the beaches and you pull up an oily brine.  How are the tourist industry jobs recovered?  BP utilized surfactants to disperse and dissolve the oils as they floated up in the Gulf of Mexico.  The greatest benefit, whether BP intended it or not, was that aerial photos showed no signs of oil.  However, chemicals that settled at the bottom decimated colonies of shrimp and other sea life which harmed another popular area industry.  How are those jobs recovered?  

Representatives of a company are legally obligated to act in the greatest interest of the shareholders and thus the company; not to protect the environment, not to protect citizens’ jobs.  If you are thinking, ‘but their reputation would be hurt by not protecting the other aspect’, then I have to ask, what was your first thought when I mentioned Exxon Valdez and BP oil spill?  Was it a sort of groan? Or ‘he’s one of those guys?’ Or ‘not that old topic again’?  Corporations have enough options open to them to protect themselves for the amount of time that the typical citizen can stand to hear about a topic.  

Besides, it is primarily an inelastic market.  Forcing the oil corps to clean up their own mess will only result in raising the cost of oil to the consumer in a reactive rather than proactive manner.  What other option do you have?  The government can raise the price of a gallon of fuel.  That candidate would quickly be run out of office next term.  It reminds me of a party a friend threw recently.  The friend did not want to invite certain people for different reasons, but at the same time he did not want to seem rude to those same people.  He had another friend invite people for him.  This way when someone asked either party host, ‘Why didn’t you invite me?’ He could respond that the other person, which ever person it was, must have forgot.  In our oil instance it would simply be passing the blame to another area of government.  Obama was an event organizer.  He should be able to get that deal together easily.  Alright, any conservative reading this should have been able to appreciate that remark at least. 

So, in summary, the contractual agreement between government and oil company needs to strongly encourage the company to diversify its portfolio into renewable investments which help to make the market more elastic.  Eventually, rather than fighting the use of renewables, it will be a perfectly justifiable option to discuss with shareholders.  Some of this cost would still come back to the consumer, but it would be a better value for the dollar.  The endeavor is always going to pose environmental risks, but there is no reason the locations should not be prioritized into only operating in the areas of least impact first.  For North Carolina, that risk seems too great. Oil companies love to advertise to states about the pockets of resources they have found, but they do not advertise the impacts.  And state sponsored studies only look at their own feasibility.  The federal government should conduct this study and map out when each state would be allowed to proceed.  They are not preventing drilling, only prioritizing it.  The study, along with regulating the fossil fuel supply can be used as a tool to manipulate the fuel prices to the consumer to build necessary funds for risk mitigation, to promote federal level infrastructure changes to make other resources a viable option for the future, and to help direct public perception towards the cleaner side of energy production.  Because, as Pickens inferred, it is up to us whether we like what we see at the other side of the bridge.  

UP NEXT: Natural Gas Boom: "Split Estate" Movie Summary