Bart Atwell, Las Vegas

Fri, May 16, 2008 (2:05 a.m.)

The Sun’s lead story Wednesday contained a pop quiz about the best way to lower energy prices. The caption under a picture of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge said the Republican plan to drill there would “increase the domestic oil supply ... and reduce dependence on foreign oil.”

Here’s another pop quiz: How much would our dependence be reduced if we drilled in ANWR? Answer: Not much. A 2004 Energy Department report estimates that, at full production, ANWR could supply only about 1 million of the 20 million barrels of oil we consume each day.

At this rate, the share of our oil that is imported would be reduced from 70 percent to 66.6 percent. A reduction, yes, but don’t expect much of an effect on gas prices. Even at peak production, ANWR oil would account for only 5 percent of our consumption. By the way, the same report projected that no oil would flow from ANWR until 2013, with peak production not reached until 2025. Don’t expect gas price relief this summer.

The Republican plan has a more fundamental flaw than limited domestic oil reserves. Oil is a nonrenewable resource. As cheap reserves diminish around the world, prices will continue to rise. Increasing supply through domestic drilling is a short-term solution at best.

The Democratic plan addresses the long term. The renewable energy sources they seek to promote will supply energy forever. As a bonus, they are environmentally clean — they don’t contribute to global warming or air pollution.

A final pop quiz: Should we be pursuing the shortsighted Republican plan or the Democratic plan for renewable energy?

Nevada is blessed with natural resources — wind, solar and geothermal — that poise it to become a leader in the development of renewable energy. This new industry would not only provide a much-needed diversification of our economy (and the reliable tax base that comes with it), it would also truly reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil while providing clean energy.