Energy Independence

November 21st, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

A lot of time has been spent on solar energy in recent days, down here in the Netherlands. Quite some profound newspapers and magazines (among which Elsevier, which is the Dutch conservative version of Time) are busily informing readers about the profound impact solar energy could have.

If Western governments are willing to invest in energy, Elsevier explained, we could provide 80 times the energy we need on a yearly basis. 80 times.

Of course, transforming the current system into entirely solar based will take years, decades even, and it will cost a tremendous amount of money. Other research has indicated that Western economies could indeed even suffer tremendously, possibly collapse if we would take this gigantic step.

But something has to change nonetheless. It is silly for us to depend on foreign oil and other energy sources that are wasteful, limited, costly and that make us dependent on other, often hostile governments.

So, if solar energy could take care of some of our needs but if we would ruin our economy if we would truly launch a massive project aimed at making solar energy our sole source of energy what can we do? The answer is simple: aside from solar power we should use wind and nuclear power.

Nuclear power is ‘dirty’ and it is difficult to get rid of the ‘garbage,’ but it is also highly effective and relatively affortable. Every single country in the West, in the world actually, could build nuclear facilities, which can be built much safer today than a few decades ago.

Wind power is quite similar to solar power of course; it is clean, but costly for us to invest in on a massive scale.

A balance has to be found between those three energy sources if we want to be able to function without ruining our economy and we have to take our time. There is no need to act as if we, the West, have to become energy independent in five years time.

The above has, of course, been noted by many others. The following has not, or, at least, it has not gotten the attention it deserves: what will happen to countries we depend so heavily on for oil now? What would happen to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and others if we would use solar, wind and nuclear power?

The answer is that these countries’ economies will collapse. They will be ruined. The collapse will be so devastating that massive riots, possibly civil wars will break out. Fathers will not be able to buy food for their children. Mothers will not be able to buy or even knit clothes for them let alone themselves. These economies depend so heavily on oil that our energy revolution would ruin them completely, leaving nothing behind except for massive instability.

As we have learned in the last couple of decades, instability in other parts of the world, and especially in Africa and the Middle East, causes instability at home. The more poverty exists in the Middle East, the more youngers will radicalize and the more likely it is that extremists will take over. They will use these countries as platforms for terrorist attacks against the West and it interests. In short, a massive Western energy revolution would make the world much less safe.

This means that when we commit ourselves to aforementioned revolution, we will need to come up with a plan for oil producing and exporting countries. It means we will have to invest in them, we will have to help them become less dependent on oil.

In turn, this means that we will have to spend many billions, trillions even perhaps, more. An energy revolution is not limited to ourselves. Its impact spreads throughout the world, it will influence many lives. Millions will lose their job and their home. Unless we help them.

It would be great to see politicians taking this subject seriously and articulate plans that would make us less dependent on foreign governments, and on oil, while explaining how they would help those governments deal with the loss in oil sales.

Until they do, all the talk about an energy revolution, let alone energy independence, should be considered void and useless.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Tully
    November 21st, 2008 at 20:02
    Reply | Quote | #1

    It’s not like the US doesn’t have several centuries worth of coal or anything….

  2. Mike
    November 23rd, 2008 at 06:32
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I think you make a good point, but aren’t you putting the cart before the horse here? I don’t think we’re anywhere close to significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Their remain many political and practical barriers. I don’t think we need to start planning an international welfare plan for oil-producing countries just yet. You are right though that this is something that we should aware of so it doesn’t take us by surprise, but I think we need to come up with a viable (politically and practically) plan first.

  3. Grewgills
    December 4th, 2008 at 02:23
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Solar and wind both have considerable value. The primary difficulty with both is the intermittent nature of the supply.

    The majority of our dependence on foreign energy is for transportation. To deal with this either electric cars or an oil substitute is needed. Biofuels from either mixed prairie grasses or algae offer the most promising avenues there. Mixed prairie grasses (not just switch grass) and algae both offer high energy density and need not impinge on land where food crops are or could be grown.

    To answer a question by you from an earlier post:

    Anyone got some reading material to suggest?

    A good source for prairie grass ethanol info can be found at:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464.abstract
    The full text is linked in an info bar to the right of the abstract.
    I believe an algae based biodeisel plant went online in Texas this year.
    http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-plant-goes-online-april-1-2008/

    The energy density of algae based facilities is amazing.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRV-4TCTGBT-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ca020c3740d42c7a63ab2147db9f8813

    Something very new that I recently ran across that has amazing potential:
    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008039450&IA=US2007020663&DISPLAY=STATUS
    If it works near as well as hoped it will be great.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.