I have been busy with school, so I haven't posted in a while, until I read something that piqued my interest.
I was searching online about possible future energy resources. Some of the Fossil Fuel proponents state that "renewables" provide only a very small
percentage of our total energy consumption, but this is not a fatal problem, all that needs to be done is to expand the renewable sources.
They also claim that the main disadvantage of renewables is that they are intermittent. This is a problem mainly of geography, location, and scale, if
the solar array is located in the same location and is small compared to the weather patterns then yes intermittent light conditions will be a
problem. Yet, if the solar panel array stations are strategically located around the country, in such a manner as to minimize the effects of weather
which could adversely affect the intensity of light falling on the panels then intermittent energy production will be reduced. Even under the worst
weather conditions there is still light, especially in parts of the country that usually sunny year round, very rarely is the weather so extreme that
it appears like night. So, if the solar panel arrays are built sufficiently large that even under extreme weather conditions it can provide sufficient
energy output, then intermittent energy production will be further reduced.
Some critics also state that the production, installation, operation, and infrastructure for solar panel arrays depend on oil. My response is yes, but
only for the time being, when the solar panel array and electrical infrastructure becomes sufficiently large and ubiquitous such that it will be
possible to construct solar panels and all the infrastructure using energy solely derived from the solar array, then Oil will no longer be
Some critics cite that because of intermittent energy production, renewable energy sources will require energy storage on a large scale, for which,
they claim, we do not have an adequate solution. This isn't a fatal problem, it simply a technical/scientific/engineering problem, with sufficient
research I am pretty confident it can be adequately solved.
Finally some critics cite both the political and financial difficulties of building such an array, it usually has to do with environmental regulations
and/or taxes, subsides, etc, etc. I find it interesting that the power elite, many of whom are oil companies, have no financial nor political trouble
controlling almost everyone from the neighborhood dog, to your busdriver, including politicians, have no financial nor political trouble when it comes
to starting wars under false pretenses, manipulating the media and the world at a massive scale, hiring actors and / agents to shift societal norms,
hiding the truth of ETs, hiding the truth about viewing forward in time and possible time travel, possible weather manipulation, and/or invading
nearly everyone's privacy. Yet, when it comes energy sources, they act as if Not even God could change our reliance on Oil, Vishnu could come down
from the heavens, and all we are getting are these old, worn out, energy leads, we need the new stuff, the new energy leads.
Not to mention, the power elite, find it easier to view forward in time and to manipulate the weather, both of which require extensive scientific
research and exotic technology. Yet, when it comes to energy storage, especially when used in conjunction with renewable energy sources, all of sudden
it is an impossible scientific/engineering hurdle. Almost everything is possible for the elite, Except energy storage and renewables, that for them is
The point is, they have both the finances and the power to do quite literally whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it, so the political
and/or financial barriers are mostly of their own making, not ours. They have vested interests in keeping Oil the predominate key energy source for
the world, so of course anyone trying to offer an alternative to Oil and/or a complete replacement for Oil will run into political and financial
Now, renewable energy sources will, in a sufficiently long time scale, be the only alternative. All other energy sources are finite and by finite we
mean will peak and/or be completely exhausted within a couple of decades or so, eventually we will use renewable energy solely. Complete dependence on
renewable energy sources is the ideal, BUT we may have to compromise a little in the mean time. In order for renewables to supply all of our energy
needs we will need to upgrade the electrical infrastructure so that it can control and deliver the amounts of power necessary. All of a sudden coal,
natural gas, nuclear, and other energy sources become equal, especially become equal with Oil. So now they can all compete more or less fairly because
the infrastructure exists to allow it. So, it will serve the self-interests of energy production, heavy industry, etc, it will open up new frontiers
for production and use of natural gas, and nuclear power.
Constructing the upgraded electrical infrastructure, will allow for a more natural and smoother progression from fossil fuels and nuclear to
renewables. No longer will the world economy depend on just one key energy source (there are other energy sources, but oil plays a key part in
transportation). In nearly every other area of fundamental importance there are backup systems, systems in place just in case another system fails for
some reason, from braking systems, to uninterruptible power supplies, to back up generators, etc. Yet, when it comes to energy, one of the most
important resources for the operation of the world economy, all other energy sources rely on only ONE key energy source, that is inconsistent and
edit on 22-11-2014 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)