FOSSIL FUELS: The Real Solar Energy
In politics, hypocrisy abounds. When science gets political, everyone loses eventually. Oil, natural gas, and coal are not addictive substances. They are not the tobacco of the industrial world. These are hydrocarbons--stored solar energy deposits that have been gathered by Nature for millions of years. In the process, they have become very concentrated, what is considered to be “energy dense.” Nothing is more concentrated energy than hydrocarbons with the exception of nuclear energy.
In most cases, the release of the concentrated energy in hydrocarbons involves combustion, the burning of the fossil fuel. Burning is really the process of rapid oxidation, combining carbon and hydrogen with oxygen. The resultant products in a perfect process are water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). That is really all you need to know about the chemistry involved. Along with the oxygen molecule (O2), these are the basic molecules of life as we understand it today.
The problem with hydrocarbons in the past has been the fact that hydrocarbon deposits are not just hydrocarbon. There are other elements involved that when oxidized are called pollutants. They are called pollutants because they effect the balance of Nature in what we, as humans, deem to be detrimental. Remember, that is the human perspective. We could be wrong since our definition of detrimental may not be the same as Nature’s. But we have taken steps to reduce the amounts of “pollutants” that burning fossil fuels produces. While this has added to the raw cost of energy from fossil fuels, it has not changed its actual energy density or its portability. That last property, portability, is very important. No other energy source is as portable as fossil fuels.
With the preceding, admittedly simplistic review in mind, how is it that the government of the United States has determined that the Nation should take drastic measures to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels when 80 percent of the Nation’s energy is provided by fossil fuels? Further, why do this now when the actual cost of the energy from fossil fuels is multiple orders of magnitude less than any of the “renewable” alternatives?
The driving force to achieve 100 percent renewable energy in less than 30 years is alleged to be the prevention of “catastrophic climate change” by reducing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels. This “catastrophic climate change” is supposed to be caused by a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in the average global atmospheric temperature by the end of the century. However, if this were to occur, there would be no catastrophe. The climate would be more moderate and crop yields would be even higher. In other words, the increased temperature will benefit humanity and the environment. The rate of sea level rise would continue at its current rate of a few millimeters per year and be less than a foot of rise by the end of the century. As in the past 150 years, humanity will continue to adapt to adverse conditions attributable to climate variations with very little effort by using fossil fuels. The developing nations will use more fossil fuels, not renewables.
Major regulatory policy errors have driven electrical utility companies to waste capital on renewable projects that are already having an effect on energy prices and reliability. In addition, the complete life-cycle costs of renewable systems have not been included in power-cost projections. One hundred percent electrification is a goal that requires investment in real infrastructure, that is distribution lines and power plants, not solar and wind farms or social justice. Today we pursue a nonsensical course that will be judged by History as foolish.