It's called natural gas. It's clean. It's cheap. It's abundant. It's ours.
It's also carbon, and anything carbon is baaaad, according to the end of the world, "climate change" fanatics who are currently running the political show.
Since our transportation infrastructure functions on liquid fuels, converting the fleet to NG is not a quick realistic fix. Internal combustion engines can run fine on NG, but its pressurized storage is bulky, a problem enhanced in small "Obama Motors" cars, and range between refills is consequently limited. Although I'm not familiar with the technology, I'd be interested to know at what price point gas-to-liquid becomes economically viable.
Coal-to-liquid is viable now (SASOL in South Africa has been doing it for years) but the climate nannys won't allow it here. In addition to shale gas, the US has enormous shale oil reserves (biggest in the world) that won't be developed due to the same greenie factors. And if the Alberta sandbox was in the US, it most likely wouldn't be developed either.
You're correct that the energy problem is primarily political. Peak oil, whether it's already occurred or is imminent, is a fact, unlike drowning polar bears. And in my opinion, we'll be needing all sources of conventional (including nuclear) and alternative energy in order to keep the world's economy from imploding.
The world cannot run on windmills and solar panels alone, and that is a fact... |
