Former Virginia politician Allen offers insight on energy crisis

By: Leah Scull

Posted: 10/2/08

On Tuesday, September 30, Virginian politician, George Allen, addressed the Lake Forest College community. The event, which was held in the Lily Reid Holt Memorial Chapel, was sponsored by College Republicans, Young America's Foundation, and Student Government.
From 1994-1998, George Allen served as Virginia's 67th Governor, and from 2001-2007 as a United States Senator. In 2006, Allen ran for reelection in the Senate, but lost by a narrow margin to Democratic candidate Jim Webb.
Allen's talk, "Held Hostage by Foreign Oil," focused on America's current energy crisis and its relation to the upcoming presidential election.

Why and when did you decide to come to Lake Forest? Is being back on the North Shore nostalgic for you?
Well, yeah, it kind of is. I first met Pat [Casten] at Young America's Conference in Washington, D.C. this summer. We talked about our love for football, and when his request [for my talk] came in I immediately remembered liking Patrick. I grew up in Deerfield, IL, you call it North Shore, but it's the same county, Lake County. And I said, "Well that will be interesting, I'd like to do it." And I very much like talking to college students in that I was in college at the University of Virginia when I first got involved in politics for Ronald Reagan back in 1976. So, I look at the future of our country through future leaders; and students such as those at Lake Forest College are the future leaders. Oh, and one other thing I should have said, Lloyd Ogilvie went here. I had it written down and I got carried away. He was a Senate Chaplin, and went here.

Al Gore's We Can Solve It campaign advocates for a complete overhaul of the current American system of energy production, calling for 100% clean energy within the next 10 years. Do you see this as a realistic goal? What role do you see renewable energy sources playing in ending our dependence on foreign oil?
To think that we will be completely free of it in ten years is blissfully absurd. I mean what would he be using for electricity generation, these are just basic questions. If we're not going to be using clean coal, and we're not going to be using nuclear, I don't know what he thinks about natural gas. To think that we are going to get all our energy from solar and wind is just oblivious of reality and to do what he's suggesting, would mean that our electricity rates would be skyrocketing in this country, which would put a lot of people out of work and our country would be less competitive for investment in jobs. The key base load for electricity clearly needs to be clean coal technology and advanced nuclear which is safer and more efficient than the way we're doing it presently. Renewables as far as solar I think have a lot of potential particularly in individual buildings and maybe some houses but especially for buildings that will be around for a long time. I think every governmental buildings should be using these innovative, you can call them renewable, but creative technologies whether it's thicker glass, thicker building material so you don't have to use as much energy to cool or heat, better solar panels with the advancements in nanotechnology is really going to be helpful. Nanotechnology as far as materials will be lighter and stronger, leaving less propulsion for vehicles or aircraft and so forth. But I think every state, local, and Federal government buildings ought to be using these energy saving new technologies where it's solar, thicker walls, water comes off the roof and watering the landscaping, don't have landscaping that takes a lot of water…We need to be much less wasteful with practical conservation. I don't know if you would consider batteries renewable because you still need electricity, but I think that's showing a lot of potential. You see the auto manufacturers coming around for the hybrid and battery operated vehicles. GM is coming out with the Volt and Toyota is actually further ahead than US manufactures but I think there is tremendous potential for it and is an essential component in our energy dependence. By the way, Al Gore would also impose all these taxes on American energy, whether it's coal, whether it's oil or natural gas, and it's just oblivious of reality. We're in competition with the rest of the world, China isn't doing this to themselves, neither is India. And we need to make sure we have affordable, reliable American energy.

Illinois is the national leader in the production and use of nuclear energy, with 48% of their energy coming from nuclear sources. Do you see this as part of a national trend in a shift towards nuclear? What's been holding back other large states from embracing nuclear energy? Do you see other states, such as Virginia, going nuclear in the near future?
In the country, about 50% is coal, 20% is nuclear, 20% gas, 7% hydro, 3% solar wind oil. The cost of hydro is the least expensive, but fat chance there's going to be any more dams built. And that ends up being about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, coal ends up being, and there are states that use 98% coal, that ends up being about 6-7 cents per kilowatt hour, and the national average is around 10. Those that have a mix end up being 8-9 cents. Nuclear has clearly got to be a component of our base load electricity. For those that care about clean air, and all of us care about clean air, nuclear is great for it. The main impediment in why there hasn't been a nuclear power plant license issued in, well, over 30 years now, is because of two reasons. One, the long permitting process, and that a plant costs billions and billions of dollars, and a minimum of ten to fifteen years before you even get it online. So, for a power company, they really have to have good forward thinking to say, "Twenty years from now, here's the demand, and so we're going to go through all this investment, all this permitting, all the hearings, and all the opposition you usually get from it." And, because of all that, there hasn't been one. In the 2006 Energy Bill, some of this was streamlined, but John McCain believes, and I believe, that we need to get new reactors built. The reactors that will be built will most likely be built at existing sites where the people in those communities are familiar with nuclear power, and they end up with really low property tax rates. Those communities also get a lot of revenue from those power plants. Virginia has two plants, and in fact, Dominion [Virginia's power utility] is trying to get permitting to build another reactor at Lake Anna. The other impediment, besides the enormous cost of a nuclear power plant compared to coal or natural gas, is: What do you do with the spent fuel? Every nuclear power plant is a high-level nuclear waste repository. We do not have a national repository. There has been for years an effort to try to build it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the Senator from here, Durbin, he just rails against it, because he thinks we can just have all this nuclear waste driving through Illinois. At any rate, the approach should be not having every plant being a high-level nuclear waste site. We need to operate the way the French do it: they keep recycling, reprocessing the spent fuel rods until the radioactivity is minimal, and then they encase it in glass. It's a much more efficient, less dangerous, safer way of doing it, and once that's done, communities will feel a lot safer having a nuclear power plant. Low-level radioactive waste, states have compacts, and they move that out, and that is good. It's put into a safe place. So, two things, streamline the process, and allow for reprocessing and recycling of the waste. When that's done, that'll make it much safer. If the French can do it, so can we.

With Mark Warner becoming Governor of Virginia in 2002, followed by Tim Kaine in 2005, and, more recently Senator Webb's victory in 2006, it seems like more and more high offices in Virginia are being held by Democrats. So where is the demographic shift: are the people of Virginia becoming more liberal or are the Virginian Democrats moving towards the center to gain a larger appeal? Is it just frustration with the current Administration?
Good question. Every race has its own reasons. I think Mark Warner got elected because Republicans in the legislature, even with a Republican governor they couldn't adopt a budget so Mark Warner says we can do better than that. And that's how come he got elected. It wasn't anti- Bush. Kaine got elected… well, there is an influx of people coming into Virginia, particularly in Northern Virginia, a lot are coming from the Northeast and they're more Democrat, they're more liberal. And so you see Northern Virginia becoming more liberal. In 2006, my election was so close it's like losing a football game by one point. I've gone through 898 things I could have done different. And I take responsibility personally for the loss and I made mistakes and the campaign wasn't run the way I think campaigns out to be run. However, the prevailing sentiment on independent voters, the Democrats were really fired up in 2006 against the war and against Bush. Independents in Virginia, over 60% were also against President Bush and the war. Now Democrats are still fired up and I think Republicans are fired up too though and not taking things for granted. Independents are split more right now because the big issue now is the economy and energy. We're doing much better in Iraq with the surge strategy which is much better than what was going on in 2006 which was not making much progress at all and people were dissatisfied with the lack of progress. President Bush got rid of his Secretary of Defense and listened to John McCain in 2007 and went with the surge strategy. So President Bush is still unpopular, however Congress is even more unpopular. If you look at approval ratings, President Bush might be in the 20s or 30s, Congress is 11 or 18 or probably single digits now after this week's fiasco. But Virginia's growing, there's a lot of influx of folks. This is the best question I've heard on this, by the way, and that includes national media. The Democrats will promise not to raise taxes, they'll try to look like they're moderate, that they're pro-gun rights, they'll act as if they'll sponsor a Nascar car and so forth and so they do that and when they get in office they propose tax increases.

Virginia is considered to be one of the key battle ground states this election year, with some polls even showing Obama ahead by 5 points. What chances do you see of Virginia going blue in November?
It's clearly a battleground state. You'll see McCain up by two or three and you'll see Obama up by two or three. I haven't seen five. Northern Virginia will be tough but the Hampton Roads area is key. McCain will do great in the Southside, he'll do well in Shenandoah Valley, Southwest Virginia, he'll do fine into Richmond in the suburbs around the city. And Obama will win all the cities, typically. But the key will be places like Virginia Beach, Chesapeake. And even if losing Hampton, Newport News, or Norfolk you want to keep your loses to a minimum. You have three main population areas: Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond. And Hampton Roads is clearly the key to it. McCain should do better there, there's a big military presence, the largest naval base, a lot of families, a lot of troops will be voting absentee. So I think Virginia is going to be really close but, ultimately because of McCain's stand on taxes, national security, energy, I think he's more consistent with the way most Virginians think than Obama. I think Virginian Republicans in my race might have been complacent, saying "Oh you're going to make it, you don't have to worry." By the time it's time to worry then the grassroots work out. This year you see a lot of people really recognizing Virginia's not a slam dunk, it's going to be a fight for every single vote and every single voter.
To what extent do you see George W. Bush as having a positive or negative impact on the GOP?
Well the Democrats obviously think he's a negative. In fact, it's almost fill in the blank. When I was running they say "Oh you voted with President Bush 90% of the time." And Obama's saying to McCain "You voted with President Bush 90% of the time." I don't see him [Bush] as a positive, although I think the Democratic controlled Congress is a much greater burden for Democrats than President Bush is for Republicans. Reality is, I think as it gets towards the election, they're going to realize there's going to be a change in administration and who are people most comfortable with on the ideas, and the solutions that they're advocating. Again, whether it's taxes, world affairs, national security, energy issues, cutting wasteful spending in Washington, and I think on that there's no one better than McCain. I know John, and he would just love vetoing wasteful spending. So, I think Bush is a factor, I think the Democratic Congress is a factor. I think it's really going to come down to who are you going to trust more as your Commander in Chief, John McCain or Barack Obama. And the Vice Presidents have some impact but it's those two that really matter.

Do you have any plans for Virginia's 2009 gubernatorial and/or 2012 Senate race?
Well, I've already announced that I'm not running for governor next year. I'll support McDonnell. And as far as 2012, that's too far away. [laughs] I'm enjoying freedom. I'm actually enjoying spending more time and doing things with my family.
What do you think the biggest domestic and foreign challenges the current generation of college students will face?
Energy, absolutely. I don't know how many of you have vehicles here, but you're seeing how high gas prices are. This energy issue is truly a national security issue. And sending this much money out of our country is going to ruin investment in this country, because the money is not staying here, it's not getting circulated in our own country, it's getting circulated in Venezuela or Kuwait or United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think this energy issue is a competitiveness issue for jobs and our standard of living and it's something that I think the current generation has done nothing, and some of the proposals are even counterproductive. But I think young people really can have an impact on energy whether it is creative solutions in utilizing our resources under our land and water, or clean coal technology, advanced nuclear, batteries, a lot of those. So I think that's something that's just going to affect everything from our food prices to our fuel prices to ultimately our national defense.