Obama Is Wrong; Alternative Energy is Not an Alternative

Obama is using the oil spill in the Gulf as an emotional lever to push his cap and trade policy. The spill is a disaster, but exploiting it is truly despicable. It is made far worse when the alternative energies solutions don’t work. Increased costs will damage the economy and negatively impact the people he claims to represent. We’re in this predicament because of exploitation by politicians and environmental groups who deliberately ignore scientific evidence and corruption in climate science. Options were dramatically reduced by campaigns of fear against nuclear power creating legislation so that it now takes up to 14 years to construct a nuclear power plant.

Obama’s Cap and Trade will increase the cost of oil, coal and natural gas sufficient to make the US economy uncompetitive. This will reduce the possibility of paying off the massive debt he has incurred.

Capabilities of alternative energies were misrepresented and real costs grossly distorted by subsidies. Politicians added political canards such as US self-sufficiency, when all solutions are available in-house. Wikipedia says, “alternative energy is an umbrella term that refers to any source of useable energy intended to replace fuel sources without the undesired consequences of the replaced fuels.” If this were true what people consider alternative energies would qualify as “replaced fuels.” It is a cute academic definition, but the reality is the only fuels considered “undesirable” are those that produce CO2. This is because of the false work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). People forget their predictions of future temperatures are based on continued and increasing demand for electricity – business as usual. They cannot anticipate technological innovations. For example, though expensive at present, Light Emitting Diode (LED) white light will dramatically reduce power requirements.

Some define renewable energies as the only acceptable alternative energies, but they have severe limitations. The focus is diverted away from the real power production problems and potential resolutions. Obama cleverly concedes they’re not a short-term solution, but ignores the fact they’re not a long-term solution either. Major energies touted are wind and solar, but in 2007 they provided only 6 percent of alternative US production, which is just 7 percent of total US production (Figure 1). Percentages have changed slightly but are still insignificant and limitations continue.

Figure 1: Breakdown of US energy production.

Except for petroleum to drive vehicles the common denominator of any energy source is to produce electricity. The overarching need is for a continuous supply of energy. Solar and wind are not continuous, so they must have backup sources instantly available and coal, oil, or nuclear are the only options. Countries that have attempted wind power experience an increase in CO2 production. An article titled “Wind power is a complete disaster” reports the German experience. “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.”

Wind power is a complete disaster

Denmark has the highest percentage of wind power and their experience is telling. As the National Post article reports, “Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.” Because the wind can drop or surge suddenly it puts stress that can overload the grid so wind power is generally limited to 12 percent of the total supply. Other problems include the surge demand placed on the grid when the wind drops off, or the addition of surplus power when the electrical demand drops and wind power is still being added. A report from Britain tells of wind farms being paid to shut down turbines to prevent this problem.

These are economic realities, but add in the number of birds killed, the blight on the landscape, and the cost of transmission from remote locations and it is not an alternative.

Solar power is no better

Solar power is no better. Spain has paid the price and has moved to stop the bleeding.“Spain is lancing an 18 billion-euro ($24 billion) investment bubble in solar energy that has boosted public liabilities choking off new projects as it works to cut power prices and insulate itself from Greece’s debt crisis.”

Loss of supply is slightly more predictable because of known hours of daylight. However, these are less than half the day in winter for most of the world. The unknown factor is cloud cover. You reduce this by going to desert regions but then there is wind blown sand damage, as well as vast arrays despoiling landscapes and ecologies.

Even modest usages of biodiesel would consume almost all cropland in some countries in Europe!

We’ve already experienced limitations of biofuels triggered by government subsidies. In that case it was simply US agricultural land diverted. As one review notes, “Switching to biodiesel on a large scale requires considerable use of our arable area. Even modest usages of biodiesel would consume almost all cropland in some countries in Europe!”

More CO2 and nitrogen oxides are produced than from fossil fuels, but they divert from this reality by presenting a net figure achieved by subtracting CO2 used to grow the plant. Biodiesel has lower fuel efficiency than petrodiesel. Low temperatures are a serious limit for all diesels but worse for biodiesels.

Geothermal has potential but is limited in location and usually far from where it is needed. The same is true for hydroelectric and tidal power. If Obama really wants to solve the energy problems he should offer a prize for a method of reducing line loss, and another for a method to effectively store electricity.

Obama’s exploitation of the Gulf oil spill is a shameless effort to push Cap and Trade

Obama’s exploitation of the Gulf oil spill is a shameless effort to push Cap and Trade, a policy that will bring the US economy to its knees and give the government control over all aspects of people’s lives. He claims the spill is proof of the need to shift to alternative energies because they do not produce CO2. He acknowledges that alternative energies cannot replace traditional energies in the short-term, but he ignores the fact that they cannot replace them in the long-term either. Like all his other actions, such as massively increasing the debt, creating jobs by expanding government, introducing legislation to increase the role and power of bureaucracies to bypass the elected representatives, have all been tried and failed. The pattern seems to support the argument that alls his actions are designed to cripple the US economy. A political motive is the only explanation for such illogic.