Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close
The Washington Times Online Edition

Energy options set aside for now

There have been countless articles about chances for an economically devastating shortage of energy in the future, usually with suggestions for some technological solution.

But before settling on a solution, we must first confirm there is a problem — and that is problematic.

Many analysts say we will never run out of oil, and others say we will. This means that one bunch of analysts doesn’t know what it is talking about.

Conservatives usually say we have plenty of oil, while liberals say we don’t.

This suggests that they are deciding on ideological rather than scientific grounds. We need to find out.

India and China together have eight times our population. If they develop to the American level, they will need eight times our consumption of oil. Is that much out there?

If we agree there is a problem, or may be, what then is the solution? Much technology is suggested, but none of it is clearly workable.

Nuclear fusion promises endless free energy but shows no sign of working anytime soon. Nuclear power works fine but doesn’t fly well politically, at least in the United States.

It also doesn’t produce gasoline for cars. Oil can be extracted from oil shale and gasoline made from coal, but both are filthy and expensive. Nobody is seriously getting ready to do it.

People talk of a hydrogen economy, in which hydrogen would for example be burned in cars. It sounds nice as long as you don’t think about it.

Sure, you eliminate petrochemical pollutants and carbon dioxide because, when you burn hydrogen, you get water vapor. The thing is, you get hydrogen either from natural gas, which brings us back to fossil fuels, or by hydrolyzing water (breaking it into hydrogen and oxygen), which requires (sigh) energy.

Wind power? Nice for a ranch maybe, but not for New York. Solar power? It would help if widely adopted, but it can’t be more than part of a solution.

And so on. Every idea has its enthusiasts and its debunkers.

The problem, of course, is that we have too many people using too much energy. If we lived in a forest with one family per square mile, we could use firewood for energy and never run out. But we don’t live that way and the population grows.

If we lived in small towns we could bike to work, but in fact we live in remote suburbs and drive to work. And so on. None of this will change quickly.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • ** FILE ** Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks during a news conference on Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

    Questions surface on Gingrich campaign travel payments

    By Luke Rosiak - The Washington Times

  • This artist rendering shows Amine El Khalifi before U.S. District Judge T. Rawles Jones Jr. in federal court in Alexandria, Va., Friday, Feb. 17, 2012. El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan man was arrested Friday near the U.S. Capitol as he was planning to detonate what he thought was a suicide vest, given to him by FBI undercover operatives, said police and government officials. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)

    Terror suspect arrested near U.S. Capitol

    By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times

  • Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Associated Press)

    Justice says Supreme Court should revisit campaign finance

    By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times

  • Happening Now

          Independent voices from the TWT Communities

          Media Migraine

          First over-the-counter column approved for fast and effective relief from even your worst media-induced headache.