Worthy Education on Energy Alternatives

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

There were two fundamental problems with the Sept. 14 editorial "Self-Serve, Please."

First, The Post compared nuclear energy -- a power source, not a motor fuel source -- to renewable fuels that directly replace petroleum imports. Precious little petroleum is used for electric power generation, and electricity is not yet a viable alternative to liquid transportation fuels. This is a fundamental disconnect in America's energy system that is too often presented as fact.

Second, because the federal government chose to invest $1.6 million over two years -- a paltry sum compared with the tens of billions made by the oil industry -- to educate Americans on renewable alternatives, The Post assumes this must be propaganda.

Rather than attacking agriculture-based renewable fuels, The Post ought to have recognized that this is a broad program encompassing natural gas and propane, as well as renewable fuels. It should also have recognized the importance of reducing our dependence on all fossil fuels and urged the federal government to expand this program to educate Americans on their alternative energy choices.

BOB DINNEEN

Washington

The writer is president and chief executive of the Renewable Fuels Association, which is part of the Alternative Fuel Trade Alliance, the recipient of the $1.6 million Energy Department contract.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company