The False Debate
A fascinating spectacle are the political ideologies which have embraced particular energy sources as part of their brand while rejecting others. Most interesting are those which reject renewable energy development on count of "economics" all-the-while glorifying theoretical technologies such as exotic nuclear fuel cycles and carbon sequestration*.
A commenter on an article about oil prices speaks:
There's plenty of oil and no fundamental reason to expect prices of $200 per barrel. But that doesn't excuse the administration's punitive approach toward the industry.
By punitive, this commenter is speaking of the perceived valuation given to various energy sources by politicians depending upon the (D) or (R) aftert their names. As we had a (D) president at the time, we hear crying that he - and therefore all of the government - is supporting renwables and leaving fossil in the dust. The opposite was true during the past (R) presidency.
It's interesting to hear people crying about how fossil fuels are being "treated badly" when they provide 80% of the metered energy we use, have received about $400 billion in US government money since 1950, and no serious effort exists anywhere to reduce their market share, especially given that Jevons Paradox and infinite-growth-on-a-finite-planet economics have caused fossil fuel use to grow despite the alternative energy lip service.
It would make sense to be promoting other sources of said joules while the fossil joules are still able to provide the bulk of our needs and desires. You know, so we'll be ready when the time comes for them to be really needed. This is not even considering the fact that by burning this subterranean carbon at 200 tons per second, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is increasing faster than at any known time in the history of the Earth.
As far as nuclear energy is concerned, it is a technology that was developed as a by-product of military operations and is highly socialized in most implementations, just as renewables are perceived to be, even if that means the government simply talks about them as is the case with the Obama Administration as of 2011.
Nuclear- and solar-sourced energy systems are equally challenging but in opposing ways. Nuclear systems require us to tame a highly concentrated energy source and convert it into a more safe and sane form - typically electrical current - for use by people. Solar systems require us to gather up large amounts of rather docile and dilute energy and concentrate them.
Pundits usually forget the entire concept of time when writing an incensing piece on energy. Plenty of hyperbole is used, as if the government (the usual enemy) will tomorrow shut down the entire fossil-energy system and bring online a new one fueled by dilute forces of nature and paid for with YOUR money!
Catering to the emotions of the tax payer, automobile driver, and electricity rate payer is a common tactic. Usually people think that anyone but them should be paying for energy infrastructure, because we all want to have cake and eat it too.
* Wait...make that "Carbon Capture and Storage". Because no one in America knows what "sequestration" means.
CREATED/WRITTEN: 2011-04-04 16:32