by Allan Taylor
From
http://www.helium.com/items/1270584-is-solar-energy-solution-to-us-oil-dependence

No, solar energy is not the solution to reducing US oil dependency.

Considerable progress has been made in the development and use of solar energy world wide over the last decade. This is a good thing and no doubt will continue. But where does solar energy fit into the overall energy crisis problem?

The production of oil in the US has been declining since about 1975 due to apparent depletion of oil fields and to unfavorable Federal Government intervention and regulation, such as banning offshore drilling and closing down of oil wells. After all, why produce oil yourself when it can be imported more cheaply?

The recent sudden oil price hike to the unheard of $148 a barrel was a wake up call to the US, illustrating its precarious economic and strategic position in the world. The source of much imported oil is from Venezuela and some Middle East Arab countries which are not exactly friendly to the US. They seem to take a delight in taking a swipe at the world’s super power!

Today (December 2008), on settling in of the global financial crisis, the price of oil has plummeted to ca $45 a barrel! Why has this happened? Demand for and the use of oil couldn’t possibly have dropped over 50% within a month. Maybe credit to buy it has dried up?

The oil exporting countries are none too happy about the situation. For many this is their sole source of foreign currency and their economies are geared to having an oil price much higher, like $70 a barrel or more (Government expenditure always rises to meet income). OPEC has now decided to reduce supply by ca. 5%, in hope of improving the price and income for them. What a shambles the world economy is in!

Americans are rightly concerned about their over dependence on oil imports. What to do about it has produced a wide range of ideas and created businesses which need careful analysis as to their sensibility and viability. The time factor is important as these projects may be short, medium or long term solutions, or non-solutions to the problem (i.e., years to decades for results).

The popular response to the energy crisis today is to move away from the use of fossil fuels and towards “renewable energy”, such as solar and wind power and biofuels. This idea is promoted by Obama and the Democrats, and of course the Green Movement.

This is emphasized by Obama’s recent appointment for Secretary of Energy, namely Professor Steven Chu, of the University of California, Berkeley, an expert on renewable energy and Nobel Prize co-winner (Physics 1997). Chu is also the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory which is a center for research into biofuels and solar energy technologies, which employs 4000 people and has a budget of $650 million (Wikipedia).

If the future development of solar energy is going to make an impact on the energy crisis then it would seem that the choice of Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy is an excellent one. Well done Obama!

However, on reading the fine print of Chu’s biography I have my doubts that anything positive will come of it all. A major research objective of the National Laboratory is to develop technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He is an advocate of alternative energy and believes that it is essential to move away from fossil fuels to combat global warming. In other words, he is a believer of Al Gore’s propaganda and the Green’s “Theory of Cataclysmic Global Warming”. He has to accept this to maintain his research grants. Chu, in my opinion, is “out on a limb and can’t get back”, and also, he is “barking up the wrong tree”.

This does not harbor confidence in many people for the future economy and prosperity of the USA!

So what is the solution to the energy crisis?

Firstly it is necessary to realize that all this demonization of carbon and atmospheric CO2 is unwarranted. It arises from it being an essential part of the Green religious propaganda but has no support from scientific observation. It is simply religious dogma. Like in the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the sun and moon revolved around the earth. The skeptics were imprisoned or burnt at the stake!

In fact, atmospheric CO2 produced by power stations, other industrial plants and automobiles acts as a free fertilizer for the biosphere. We need, of course to remove pollution from sulfur, particulates, and other minor toxic components of combustion, but CO2, like water vapor, is harmless and essential to life on earth. Atmospheric CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The gradual increase observed in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years, to 380 ppm, has been very beneficial to mankind by increasing crop yields and rates of growth. At atmospheres below 200 ppm CO2, plants wither, but at 1000 ppm they are quite happy and grow prolifically, such as when used in commercial controlled hothouse environments.

Also, the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global warming is bunkum, (nor can it make the oceans acidic), as shown by the huge amount of scientific evidence that has accumulated over the last decade. The United Nation’s IPCC which promotes this fraudulent scare mongering should be ignored (preferably sued) otherwise the world will descend further into economic chaos. This has already started due to the dodgy financial systems promoted by US bankers and financial “experts” of Wall Street. As President Putin of Russia is reported as saying ” You Americans started it all and caused this chaos”. However, maybe we can also lay blame on the Europeans (EU) for promoting all the bunkum about global warming and promoting a useless and harmful “Emission Trading Scheme” to remedy this non-problem.

Let’s forget about who is to blame and consider what to do about it all.

Once you accept the true state of affairs, that is that CO2 gas is an essential component of the atmosphere for life to exist and that more of it is a good thing then the best path ahead is obvious.

The world economy is totally dependent on oil for transport fuels and petrochemicals which maintain our present high standard of living. I predict that this will be so FOR EVER because the properties of element carbon and its derivatives are so unique that there are no adequate substitutes. Viva Carbon!

Also, I predict that in the year 2100, your descendants will be happily driving a GM? product (or Toyota) automobile fueled by gasoline, diesel or LPG.

Obviously, Professor Chu, the Director of the National Laboratory in Berkeley has got it wrong.

It would be more sensible if the objectives of this high powered laboratory were rotated 180 degrees and they concentrated on how to get “more bangs for the buck” out of fossil fuels.

Forget about Al Gore and his religious mania and get back to science!

For starters, immediately the US should get rid of Government restrictions on drilling for oil both on and off shore, so as to boost domestic production. Ditto impediments on construction of thermal and nuclear power stations. Requirements for utility companies to produce 10 or 20% of power from renewable resources should be abolished, this just being part of the Green’s eco-religious nonsense.

Research and development should concentrate on finding better, and more efficient ways of getting hydrocarbon fuels from coal and oil, and of generating electricity, without undue pollution, bearing in mind that atmospheric CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Let us squeeze the last drop of oil out of the fields we know about. Let’s find new oil fields that we suspect exist. Let’s query the traditional theory of oil formation. What about the igneous origin of oil? What about the role of meteorite impact on the origin of oil? Let’s apply de Bono’s invention of lateral thinking to the problem , or are you a Greenie and content to accept the religious bunkum promoted by Al Gore? God help America!

Much needs to be done on defining the enormous reserves of oil shales and sands that exist and which in the latter part of this century I predict will be the main source of our petroleum. How best to mine it? Open cut methods no doubt, but how to process it?

We have coal reserves sufficient to last a couple of hundred years, maybe 1000 years. Natural gas reserves too are extensive. R & D needs to concentrate on how better to extract and produce transport fuels, both natural and synthetic, such as gasoline, kerosene, diesel and propane (LPG) so that in future we can fuel our cars, buses, trucks and airplanes.

I feel sure that this is the sensible way ahead out of the energy crisis.

Concurrently, it is very important to conserve (not waste) the hydrocarbon fuels so produced.

Longer term is the need to address the transport infrastructure of major cities. Ideally, people shouldn’t have to drive their cars to work. It is important to have efficient rail, light rail, tram and bus services get people moving around, also having inner city free transport is a good thing. Working at home with a computer link to the office should be encouraged.

I am optimistic for the future because I believe that this bizarre global warming bandwagon will fizzle out within a couple of years. Let’s hope so!