The Use of Cheap Energy Sources Comes at a High Cost

Fossil or mineral fuels have many disadvantages, but their great advantage is that they are – cheap. It is therefore not surprising that there are huge subsidies that the wealthy pay for the consumption and production of oil, natural gas, coal, and peat.

Without fossil fuels, there is no modern civilization, that is a fact. Our dependence on coal, oil, and gas is unfortunately unquestionable, and no matter how much we seek alternative methods, none are as effective. Energy from fossil fuels is usually released through combustion, which releases environmentally toxic and harmful gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and many others. It is alarming that fossil fuel consumption is increasing daily worldwide. According to the International Energy Agency, from 1973 to 2012, primary energy consumption increased by an incredible 120 percent. The largest growth is recorded in countries in Asia and South America. For example, the share of oil, gas, and coal consumption in 1973 was about 76 percent, and today it is about 80 percent.

Disruption Due to Shale

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, including fossil fuels. The disadvantages are clear to everyone: the main ones are the harmful impact on the environment and limited supply, with decreasing coal, oil, and gas in the Earth’s crust. The advantages are more financial, which is why fossil fuels are used en masse. When it comes to coal, the advantages include large available reserves, relatively simple technology for energy extraction (combustion), relatively safe transport, and somewhat low prices. The advantage of oil is seen in technological advancements that allow for meeting increasing needs, there are also large shale reserves, but an economical method of extraction has not yet been perfected. The United States has managed to lower oil prices in global markets through shale oil extraction, although it was expected that such production would begin to decline if the barrel fell below 40 to 50 US dollars. This has not yet happened, so Americans are pushing forward strongly, and it is still unknown where their limits are, if they exist at all. Natural gas is the best fossil fuel because it emits few greenhouse gases into the environment. Available reserves are limited, but they have increased based on new research. Gas burns cleanly, and its transport through pipelines is simple and cheap, but there is a greater risk of explosion and fire during extraction and use.

Controversies Related to Nuclear Power

A few decades ago, modern civilization began to aggressively turn to nuclear energy, as evidenced by many nuclear power plants in Europe. France, for example, has 58 nuclear reactors, Germany nine, and the USA even 104. According to some data, there are about 425 nuclear reactors in the world, 60 are under construction, and 150 are planned. Although nuclear energy emits relatively few gases into the atmosphere, it has large energy reserves, low production costs, and great operational reliability, it also has quite a few disadvantages: the disposal of radioactive material during operation and the large amount of radioactive material after the power plant ceases operation, the danger and fear of reactor damage (core meltdown), the need for special repositories for radioactive material with long half-lives, a significant increase in costs due to safety and environmental protection requirements, and the potential danger of a power plant accident. The examples of Ukraine’s Chernobyl and Japan’s Fukushima are certainly sufficient warnings about the dangers of that type of energy.

Attempts for Transition

Wealthy Western countries and the most successful developing countries (China, Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa) spend up to two hundred billion US dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels, according to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This organization based in Paris reported that its 34 members, along with China, Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa, support the consumption and production of coal, oil, natural gas, and peat instead of actively addressing climate change. OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría warned that a change in direction is needed and that governments spend almost twice as much money subsidizing fossil fuels as they should to meet the international community’s demands for curbing climate change. By 2020, the international community’s goal is to invest one hundred billion US dollars a year in protecting the planet. That the OECD is serious about investing efforts to ensure that the use of mineral fuels does not jeopardize the climate is also evident in the announcement that it will publish nearly eight hundred measures that support the extraction, refining, or combustion of fossil fuels.
Although OECD reports show that government subsidies for fossil fuels have been declining since they peaked in 2011 and 2012, authorities believe they are still too high and undermine efforts to transform the state of the energy market.

World politicians and ecologists have been trying for decades to shift modern civilization to environmentally friendly energy sources and green energy. Attempts are being made with wind, solar, and water energy, but none of these sources are yet as efficient or economically favorable as fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that is the case, so technology will most likely focus on trying to mitigate the negative consequences of fossil fuels as much as possible, but it is almost certain that they will be used as long as they exist in the Earth’s crust, that is, as long as it is profitable to extract them.