As oil prices have hovered near or above $120 per barrel for several months and gas prices have increased to well over $3.85 per gallon, many people have been jumping on the bandwagon to claim that we need to stop using petroleum. Instead of understanding why prices are high, they seem to be determined that oil itself is the problem and that the only solution available is to get rid of it altogether as a source of energy. As highly impractical as that is, it appears to be thought of as a generally good idea. However, it is actually a generally ignorant and stupid one. Let me explain why.

First of all, petroleum is not just used for fuel. Plastics are derived from the “waste” products after refining a barrel of oil. These products can be seen and are used in practically every capacity of our everyday lives. From the alarm clock that wakes you up in the morning to the computer you’re currently using and the car you drive to the gas station to fill your tank – you will most likely be in contact with some sort of plastic material throughout your day. If we’re going to get rid of oil, we better start converting all products made from plastic into something other than petroleum-based materials.

One of the popular arguments made for halting oil consumption is that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars every year to nations that don’t like us. But from there, the argument automatically jumps to “alternative” energy. It skips the most logical step: Drill for oil domestically.

There are three things that we can do to reduce petroleum prices. We can increase the supply of it, decrease the demand for it, or do both. Energy independence – which is a terrific idea – requires the third option. So, how can we realistically reduce demand?

The first thing we can do is reduce the number of power stations that use petroleum-based fuels. There are many other ways to generate energy for our power grids. The most practical non-petroleum solution would be to use coal-fired plants. The United States has the largest proven coal reserves in the world, so it stands to reason that we ought to be using it if it will alleviate pressure on other commodities and energy sources. The next logical solution would be to build new nuclear power plants. Approximately 70% of our “clean” energy is nuclear but it only makes up about 20% of our total energy output. If we want to increase the supply of fossil fuels and reduce prices, nuclear energy is the best way to do it. Technology has vastly improved since the 1970’s – when construction last began on a nuclear plant.

Other alternatives include hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. These technologies are more limited than the above-mentioned for obvious reasons. You can’t have hydroelectric power without a large supply of water. You can’t get wind power when it is not windy. You cannot have solar power when the sun is not shining. The latter two require storage units and lots of costly maintenance, so until the technology improves they will not be as cost-effective as other current sources of energy. They are all great ideas but can only be implemented in limited regions across the country.

Those are some ways that unnecessary demand on petroleum can be reduced. So, how can we increase supply?

In addition to expanding and implementing all of the aforementioned options, we need to expand the recovery and refining of petroleum and natural gas. The United States has oil reserves off of each continental shelf, in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), in Montana and North Dakota, and in oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. All of these areas contain billions of barrels of recoverable oil. Large natural gas reserves are also recoverable in many of the same regions. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently estimated that the Arctic reserves hold 90 billion barrels of oil and three times as much natural gas. Some of this supply can be claimed by us and our neighbors to the North. All of it will contribute to the supply, whether it is global or if it is used by us alone.

Our refining capacity is also out-dated, so new refineries are needed to increase the supply of available gasoline. It has been almost as long since we have had a refinery built as it has been since we’ve built a nuclear power plant. We are now importing fully refined gasoline from other countries even though we can easily increase capacity here. If mandates for “boutique” gasoline blends were rescinded, it would also help improve production.

Through all of this there is one constant that cannot be overlooked: We need oil. There is no avoiding it. Even if we were to expand all of the energy supplies other than oil and run our power grids on “alternative” energies alone, we would still need fuel for transportation. Our entire infrastructure is based on commercial and private transportation which relies on petroleum-based fuel. If we were to eliminate oil use tomorrow, the entire country would need to find an alternate mode of transportation and distribution. Our economy would grind to a halt. Our vehicles would be useless as they are and the cost to overhaul our infrastructure would be astronomical…if not quite impossible to overhaul altogether. It will require a gradual weaning from oil for our fuel needs and it is certainly not something we can do in a matter of a few years.

If we started building new nuclear power plants, new coal-fired power plants, new refineries, wind farms (where feasible), solar structures (where practical), increase our recovery of petroleum and natural gas, and improve research and technology (instead of threatening oil companies with additional taxes), it would greatly reduce our need for foreign oil and put us on a track toward energy independence and cost-efficiency. Those people who are not interested in doing these things are certainly not interested in truly being energy independent or reducing prices. Only doing one or the other is not a solution – it is simply a charade and is wholly inadequate to be considered a “plan.”