In its December 19 issue, Chemical and Engineering News reports that a joint venture of Mascoma and Valero will build an ethanol plant. The ethanol will be manufactured from cellulosic raw materials, which is a favorite of the Obama administration.
However, you will recall from my previous writings that ethanol cannot compete cost-wise with gasoline, without a continuing taxpayer subsidy on the ethanol produced. In addition, the new joint venture plant will be financed by an $80 million "cost-sharing agreement" from the Department of Energy and a $23.5 million grant from the state of Michigan.
Here we have not only the Federal Government using taxpayer money to put down the rat hole of renewable energy, but also now the state of Michigan. This operation obviously does not make basic economic sense, when compared with the availability of low-cost gasoline from crude oil. It only becomes competitive when supported by taxpayer funds. The motivations are ideological considerations of the Obama Administration and individuals who want to develop new jobs for themselves at taxpayer expense.
Covers energy sources, economis of energy, fossil fuels, solar and wind, government and private programs
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Losing Economics of Solar Energy
I continue my objection to government use of taxpayer money to support ridiculous projects. The present case involves subsidies for solar energy. It makes no difference whether the subsidy is in the form of loan guarantees,(Solyndra), grants, tax credits or any other form of subsidy, it's a atrocious use of taxpayer money, especially in these times of budget deficits and tremendous national debt.
To support my position, I refer to an article in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News,. The article is entitled, "Polysilicon Makers Shrink Capacity".
Before I present the detail, let's have a little primer on solar energy. The basic idea is to use sunshine to generate electricity. This is done by a process, which scientists called photovoltaics. However, it is simply a process by which sunlight shines on a photovoltaic material, such as polysilicon. Some of the sun's energy is converted into electricity. However, to make a practical system, one needs to insert the polysilicon into a manufactured device, subject the device to the sun's rays, and lastly channel the generated electricity to a usable location such as lighting or electric motors.
One of the major problems with solar energy generated in this manner, is that the sun does not shine continuously. It doesn't shine at night nor does it shine during rainy or cloudy days. At those times, there is no generation of electricity, and in order to have continuity in use, it is necessary to have battery storage, which is both expensive and space consuming. Collectively, the whole process of generating solar energy and using it is considerably more expensive than the average consumer purchasing his electricity from a power generating station, usually operated on burning coal and using steam to run turbines for electricity generation.
With that cost limitation in mind, we can now refer to the detail of polysilicon makers' shrinking capacity. Wacker Chemie will close its Hikari, Japan plant in 2012 and move a portion of this operation to Singapore and Portland. It will put 500 people out of work. MEMC will reduce its workforce by 1300 jobs, including 250 jobs in the US. This is part of a program involving a 6000 ton per year polysilicon plant in Merano, Italy, which also may ultimately close. Both of these operations are in response to weakening demand for polysilicon wafers used in the manufacture of devices to generate solar electricity.
If the world market for polysilicon devices to generate solar energy is so weak, how do we justify continually pumping in taxpayer dollars to support this losing operation?
To support my position, I refer to an article in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News,. The article is entitled, "Polysilicon Makers Shrink Capacity".
Before I present the detail, let's have a little primer on solar energy. The basic idea is to use sunshine to generate electricity. This is done by a process, which scientists called photovoltaics. However, it is simply a process by which sunlight shines on a photovoltaic material, such as polysilicon. Some of the sun's energy is converted into electricity. However, to make a practical system, one needs to insert the polysilicon into a manufactured device, subject the device to the sun's rays, and lastly channel the generated electricity to a usable location such as lighting or electric motors.
One of the major problems with solar energy generated in this manner, is that the sun does not shine continuously. It doesn't shine at night nor does it shine during rainy or cloudy days. At those times, there is no generation of electricity, and in order to have continuity in use, it is necessary to have battery storage, which is both expensive and space consuming. Collectively, the whole process of generating solar energy and using it is considerably more expensive than the average consumer purchasing his electricity from a power generating station, usually operated on burning coal and using steam to run turbines for electricity generation.
With that cost limitation in mind, we can now refer to the detail of polysilicon makers' shrinking capacity. Wacker Chemie will close its Hikari, Japan plant in 2012 and move a portion of this operation to Singapore and Portland. It will put 500 people out of work. MEMC will reduce its workforce by 1300 jobs, including 250 jobs in the US. This is part of a program involving a 6000 ton per year polysilicon plant in Merano, Italy, which also may ultimately close. Both of these operations are in response to weakening demand for polysilicon wafers used in the manufacture of devices to generate solar electricity.
If the world market for polysilicon devices to generate solar energy is so weak, how do we justify continually pumping in taxpayer dollars to support this losing operation?
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Case against Any Energy Subsidies
In the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Jeff Johnson reports on a long history of US energy subsidies. The report is based on a historical study performed by Yale University economists, who concluded that the study finds a paucity of government support for a new energy sources compared with past government subsidies to gas, oil, and coal.
It is interesting that to make the statement, the Yale economists compare 15 years of expenditures for renewable subsidies with 91 years of subsidies for oil and gas. We have here the usual problem of figures don't lie, but liars figure. I need to also point out the faulty logic of complaining about subsidies for something which obviously should not be subsidized. We have ample reserves of oil, gas, and coal, all of which can be harvested to give an energy cost considerably lower than that obtained from "new energy sources". When the Yale people talk about "new energy sources", they mean renewable sources, which are agriculture-based. This presently includes ethanol from corn, with "pie in the sky" hope that we can eventually obtain significant ethanol from cellulosic materials, such as grass. We can actually do this now, but the cost far exceeds that of energy from traditional sources. This is also true of ethanol from corn, which requires continuing subsidy to make it market-competitive with gasoline.
Over the years we have spent a tremendous amount of money on agricultural subsidies. By the same logic, which Yale uses, should we now be subsidizing dandelion research?
I'm not solely criticizing subsidization of energy from renewable sources. I am criticizing subsidies for energy from any source, be it wind, solar, coal, oil, gas, or manpower. We have market forces, which will decide which of those is the most competitive form of energy. We do not need taxpayer money injected to confuse the situation, based upon one or a few people's ideas of the best approach. Market forces are determined by a preponderance of the population. It is industry's job to make available various choices for consumer judgment. It is not government's responsibility to be involved.
Some say that the people don't have the foresight to see that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and that is up to government to look toward the future. This is an erroneous conception. Before the discovery of oil, only coal was a legitimate fossil fuel. Candles were made from beef tallow and heating was primarily done with wood. There was no air-conditioning. After the discovery of oil and the continued development of coal usage, beef tallow and wood were unable to compete, in order to give us the modern day conveniences we have. Need I mention that beef tallow and wood are renewable sources.
More significantly, government did not foresee the discovery of oil, nor did it foresee the availability of nuclear energy. Government is not all-seeing. However, it can, with its superior attitude, fleece the American public from hard-earned dollars to foster ridiculous programs.
It is interesting that to make the statement, the Yale economists compare 15 years of expenditures for renewable subsidies with 91 years of subsidies for oil and gas. We have here the usual problem of figures don't lie, but liars figure. I need to also point out the faulty logic of complaining about subsidies for something which obviously should not be subsidized. We have ample reserves of oil, gas, and coal, all of which can be harvested to give an energy cost considerably lower than that obtained from "new energy sources". When the Yale people talk about "new energy sources", they mean renewable sources, which are agriculture-based. This presently includes ethanol from corn, with "pie in the sky" hope that we can eventually obtain significant ethanol from cellulosic materials, such as grass. We can actually do this now, but the cost far exceeds that of energy from traditional sources. This is also true of ethanol from corn, which requires continuing subsidy to make it market-competitive with gasoline.
Over the years we have spent a tremendous amount of money on agricultural subsidies. By the same logic, which Yale uses, should we now be subsidizing dandelion research?
I'm not solely criticizing subsidization of energy from renewable sources. I am criticizing subsidies for energy from any source, be it wind, solar, coal, oil, gas, or manpower. We have market forces, which will decide which of those is the most competitive form of energy. We do not need taxpayer money injected to confuse the situation, based upon one or a few people's ideas of the best approach. Market forces are determined by a preponderance of the population. It is industry's job to make available various choices for consumer judgment. It is not government's responsibility to be involved.
Some say that the people don't have the foresight to see that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and that is up to government to look toward the future. This is an erroneous conception. Before the discovery of oil, only coal was a legitimate fossil fuel. Candles were made from beef tallow and heating was primarily done with wood. There was no air-conditioning. After the discovery of oil and the continued development of coal usage, beef tallow and wood were unable to compete, in order to give us the modern day conveniences we have. Need I mention that beef tallow and wood are renewable sources.
More significantly, government did not foresee the discovery of oil, nor did it foresee the availability of nuclear energy. Government is not all-seeing. However, it can, with its superior attitude, fleece the American public from hard-earned dollars to foster ridiculous programs.
Criminal Prosecution of Oil Drilling Employees
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Rep. Neugebauer:
I have to hand to the Obama Administration for developing innovative ways to accomplish its goals. I say this in the same context that I admire the ability of thieves to develop new ways to steal.
I just heard on Fox News that the Justice Department is investigating criminal prosecution of managers and engineers of BP for the Gulf oil spill.
With this new development, any oil drilling executives and engineers would have to be out of their minds to continue drilling for oil and gas in the traditional manner of facing the hazards of natural forces and some beleageurment with government regulations. They would now have to worry about personal fines and jail time.
It would not even be necessary for the Justice Department to actually conduct an investigation with intent to prosecute. The mere threat that this is a possibility will put the fear of God into operators.
The outcome of this will be that oil and gas drillers will either go out of business, which is highly unlikely, or more likely they will be developing a strategy to deal with it. The most obvious strategy is to reduce the risk of natural disaster. This can be done by cutting back on deep water drilling and only drill far off the coasts of populated areas. This has two negative effects. The big possibilities of large oil reserves being discovered is considerably reduced. Any oil and gas which would be discovered in remote regions would involve significant costs for transportation either through pipeline or tankers.
A second strategy is to not move a muscle, unless all details of an operation are approved in writing by federal inspectors. This would include development of horrendous safety plans, with details on composition and manufacturing techniques of all physical parts used in the drilling operation and a complete (perhaps thousands of pages) of corrective actions which might be taken in case of accident. This would include details of financial compensations and a multitude of associated legal documents. The net result would be to hamstring the already half hamstrung operation of drilling. Oil and gas production would be significantly reduced and the cost of any production would be significantly higher, with correspondingly higher prices to the consuming public.
Rep. Neugebauer, what are you going to do about this atrocity perpetrated on your constituency?
Rep. Neugebauer:
I have to hand to the Obama Administration for developing innovative ways to accomplish its goals. I say this in the same context that I admire the ability of thieves to develop new ways to steal.
I just heard on Fox News that the Justice Department is investigating criminal prosecution of managers and engineers of BP for the Gulf oil spill.
With this new development, any oil drilling executives and engineers would have to be out of their minds to continue drilling for oil and gas in the traditional manner of facing the hazards of natural forces and some beleageurment with government regulations. They would now have to worry about personal fines and jail time.
It would not even be necessary for the Justice Department to actually conduct an investigation with intent to prosecute. The mere threat that this is a possibility will put the fear of God into operators.
The outcome of this will be that oil and gas drillers will either go out of business, which is highly unlikely, or more likely they will be developing a strategy to deal with it. The most obvious strategy is to reduce the risk of natural disaster. This can be done by cutting back on deep water drilling and only drill far off the coasts of populated areas. This has two negative effects. The big possibilities of large oil reserves being discovered is considerably reduced. Any oil and gas which would be discovered in remote regions would involve significant costs for transportation either through pipeline or tankers.
A second strategy is to not move a muscle, unless all details of an operation are approved in writing by federal inspectors. This would include development of horrendous safety plans, with details on composition and manufacturing techniques of all physical parts used in the drilling operation and a complete (perhaps thousands of pages) of corrective actions which might be taken in case of accident. This would include details of financial compensations and a multitude of associated legal documents. The net result would be to hamstring the already half hamstrung operation of drilling. Oil and gas production would be significantly reduced and the cost of any production would be significantly higher, with correspondingly higher prices to the consuming public.
Rep. Neugebauer, what are you going to do about this atrocity perpetrated on your constituency?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Department of Energy Waste
In the October 17th issue of Chemical & engineering News, Jeff Johnson has a nicely informative article on the Department of Energy's expenditures for loan guarantees and grants to promote "clean" energy.
At the end of September, the Department of Energy awarded $4.7 billion loan support for four photovoltaic solar projects in California, $1.5 billion to install ground-level solar panels, $1.4 billion to install rooftop solar panels, $1.2 billion for a solar "ranch", and $646 million for a thin-film solar project. This is all based on Congress' passage of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, which I have previously strongly recommended should be repealed by Congress and removed from separate funding.
The DOE also offers another $10.6 billion for clean energy projects through a separate loan guarantee program that is not dependent on stimulus money.Two other guarantees would support solar installations in the West—$737 million for a 110-MW concentrating solar power tower project in Nevada and $337 million for a 150-MW PV facility in Arizona. The remainder would guarantee a $132 million loan for a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Kansas.
In all, $13.3 billion of the $16.1 billion American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded program supports loans for solar-related projects.
Also at the end of September, DOE announced $156 million in grants to 60 research teams under DOE’s ARPA-E program, which funds transformative energy research projects. It is the fourth round of ARPA-E grants.
In the two years since it was first funded, ARPA-E has provided $522 million to 180 projects,
The ARPA-E grant projects involve biofuel production, alternatives to rare earth minerals, storage transport and use of thermal energy, automating the electricity grid, and grid connection of PV (solar) generated electricity. Those funds are almost equally distributed among universities, small businesses, and large businesses.
I have previously said, and I will say again, that these programs are a complete waste of taxpayer money. There is absolutely no need to try to replace the traditional sources of energy, such as natural gas and petroleum with solar and wind. US fossil fuel reserves can be harvested at costs significantly below anything that could involve solar energy.
I have recommended previously that the Department of Energy be eliminated. It was originally set up by Congress and can also be removed by Congress. From a practical consideration, the Senate will obviously vote for continued existence, as will the President. However, the House must go on record as having taken the initiative, and after the forthcoming elections of 2012, we will be able to see some positive action through a new Senate and President.
At the end of September, the Department of Energy awarded $4.7 billion loan support for four photovoltaic solar projects in California, $1.5 billion to install ground-level solar panels, $1.4 billion to install rooftop solar panels, $1.2 billion for a solar "ranch", and $646 million for a thin-film solar project. This is all based on Congress' passage of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, which I have previously strongly recommended should be repealed by Congress and removed from separate funding.
The DOE also offers another $10.6 billion for clean energy projects through a separate loan guarantee program that is not dependent on stimulus money.Two other guarantees would support solar installations in the West—$737 million for a 110-MW concentrating solar power tower project in Nevada and $337 million for a 150-MW PV facility in Arizona. The remainder would guarantee a $132 million loan for a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Kansas.
In all, $13.3 billion of the $16.1 billion American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded program supports loans for solar-related projects.
Also at the end of September, DOE announced $156 million in grants to 60 research teams under DOE’s ARPA-E program, which funds transformative energy research projects. It is the fourth round of ARPA-E grants.
In the two years since it was first funded, ARPA-E has provided $522 million to 180 projects,
The ARPA-E grant projects involve biofuel production, alternatives to rare earth minerals, storage transport and use of thermal energy, automating the electricity grid, and grid connection of PV (solar) generated electricity. Those funds are almost equally distributed among universities, small businesses, and large businesses.
I have previously said, and I will say again, that these programs are a complete waste of taxpayer money. There is absolutely no need to try to replace the traditional sources of energy, such as natural gas and petroleum with solar and wind. US fossil fuel reserves can be harvested at costs significantly below anything that could involve solar energy.
I have recommended previously that the Department of Energy be eliminated. It was originally set up by Congress and can also be removed by Congress. From a practical consideration, the Senate will obviously vote for continued existence, as will the President. However, the House must go on record as having taken the initiative, and after the forthcoming elections of 2012, we will be able to see some positive action through a new Senate and President.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Too Many Eggheads Pushing Uneconomical Solar Energy
Jeff Johnson has a two-page article entitled "Uncertainties Slows Energy Investments", with a subtitle, "House-led DOE investigation is likely to reduce US clean energy investments, growth", in the November 21 issue of C&E News. The essence of the article is that the investigation of the Solyndra bankruptcy could involve shutdown of other solar energy companies and cost the American taxpayers.
Johnson makes the point that the Solyndra investigation has put the kabosh on private investments for solar energy development. I judge that to be a good thing. The only reason private investors would possibly be interested in solar energy is because of the complete absence of risk for their investment through government loan guarantees and the possibility of greater profits through government subsidies, if at project is successful.
The Senate is not following a similar Solyndra investigation. Bill Wicker, the Communications Director, of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said, "A more thoughtful look at the financial gap for advanced energy technologies between the US and its international competitors, like China, does make sense". I completely disagree. The implication that solar energy is an advanced technology is completely unjustified in the present economy. In addition, the Chinese government has contributed only a pittance in the support of its solar energy equipment producers. It has done so, not because it is a strong believer in the economics of solar energy, but that because the US is a good potential market for this equipment.
Cliff Stearns, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight And Investigations Subcommittee, hit the nail on the head, when he said, "Even with oil at $140 a barrel, the idea that solar energy will be breakeven is questionable." As a reminder, the present price of oil is about $100 per barrel, and this has been artificially propped up by the Obama Administration by refusing drilling leases to oil production companies in the US. The latest situation is Obama's refusal to allow construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration is doing everything it can through DOE Secretary Chu to prop up the price of oil and gasoline, in order to justify taxpayer expenditures for solar energy. This is an ideological consideration unjustified by the economics of present reality. The problem is that we have too many eggheads confusing the situation.
One is Frank Laird, a professor at the University of Denver. He says, "The size of credit matters less than keeping it in place long enough to provide consistency for investors". He apparently doesn't understand money. As an example, suppose we allocate $1 trillion of taxpayer money for solar energy development each year for the next 10 years. Is this going to attract private investment? The answer is obviously yes. Private investment will have no risk for its own money, because of loan guarantees with taxpayer money. In addition, if by slight chance there is a profit to be made, it will become significant through further government subsidies. While this tends to support Laird's statement, consider the fact that an equal amount of energy could probably have been produced at significantly less cost through the oil and gas route and without the use of taxpayer money.
Another egghead is David Goldston, who is the Director of Government Affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. He says, "To develop energy sources beyond the current mix of coal, oil and petroleum takes government support." I could possibly agree with that, but then I have to ask the question, why would we want to do that? Coal, oil, and petroleum are already doing the job even with the inhibitions placed on it by the Obama Administration. Even the most ardent supporters of solar energy, when caught in a rational state of mind, will admit that solar energy can not compete economically. We should not be dumping taxpayer money down this rat hole.
Johnson makes the point that the Solyndra investigation has put the kabosh on private investments for solar energy development. I judge that to be a good thing. The only reason private investors would possibly be interested in solar energy is because of the complete absence of risk for their investment through government loan guarantees and the possibility of greater profits through government subsidies, if at project is successful.
The Senate is not following a similar Solyndra investigation. Bill Wicker, the Communications Director, of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said, "A more thoughtful look at the financial gap for advanced energy technologies between the US and its international competitors, like China, does make sense". I completely disagree. The implication that solar energy is an advanced technology is completely unjustified in the present economy. In addition, the Chinese government has contributed only a pittance in the support of its solar energy equipment producers. It has done so, not because it is a strong believer in the economics of solar energy, but that because the US is a good potential market for this equipment.
Cliff Stearns, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight And Investigations Subcommittee, hit the nail on the head, when he said, "Even with oil at $140 a barrel, the idea that solar energy will be breakeven is questionable." As a reminder, the present price of oil is about $100 per barrel, and this has been artificially propped up by the Obama Administration by refusing drilling leases to oil production companies in the US. The latest situation is Obama's refusal to allow construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration is doing everything it can through DOE Secretary Chu to prop up the price of oil and gasoline, in order to justify taxpayer expenditures for solar energy. This is an ideological consideration unjustified by the economics of present reality. The problem is that we have too many eggheads confusing the situation.
One is Frank Laird, a professor at the University of Denver. He says, "The size of credit matters less than keeping it in place long enough to provide consistency for investors". He apparently doesn't understand money. As an example, suppose we allocate $1 trillion of taxpayer money for solar energy development each year for the next 10 years. Is this going to attract private investment? The answer is obviously yes. Private investment will have no risk for its own money, because of loan guarantees with taxpayer money. In addition, if by slight chance there is a profit to be made, it will become significant through further government subsidies. While this tends to support Laird's statement, consider the fact that an equal amount of energy could probably have been produced at significantly less cost through the oil and gas route and without the use of taxpayer money.
Another egghead is David Goldston, who is the Director of Government Affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. He says, "To develop energy sources beyond the current mix of coal, oil and petroleum takes government support." I could possibly agree with that, but then I have to ask the question, why would we want to do that? Coal, oil, and petroleum are already doing the job even with the inhibitions placed on it by the Obama Administration. Even the most ardent supporters of solar energy, when caught in a rational state of mind, will admit that solar energy can not compete economically. We should not be dumping taxpayer money down this rat hole.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Cheap Energy Will Make the US More Economically Competitive
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
More talk in the News on clean energy. In spite of Solyndra and others, the White House continues to push "clean energy". The latest comment is that we must keep up with the rest of the world.
"Clean energy" are the buzzwords of the Obama Administration for anything that does not release CO2 in its final use. They mean wind and solar energy. The Administration doesn't want to talk about nuclear energy.
If you do the math, one of the problems is that one can't get more than about 10% of our energy needs from wind and solar, even with extensive commercial development. In addition, wind and solar are considerably less efficient dollarwise than using fossil fuels in our traditional generation of electricity from coal burning power plants and the use of gasoline in automotive vehicles.
Why the condemnation of CO2 as a bad actor? There are no data to show that it is detrimental to the environment. In fact, CO2 in air is a raw material source for plant growth.
I strongly suspect that ideology and taxation are behind the Administration's continuing push for clean energy. If the US follows the "clean energy" program, it will be operating an industrial economy at considerably less efficiency, than there would be with use of fossil tools. This would then put the US economy at a level more equal to Third World countries, which is one of the objectives of Marxists ideology.
The Obama Administration is using a twofold approach; throw taxpayer money at the development of inefficient energy processes and simultaneously inhibit production and use of fossil fuels. Inhibition of fossil fuel production has been demonstrated in the continued withholding of oil drilling permits from drilling companies, and the recent postponement (killing) of the Canadian oil pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
Postponement/killing of the Canadian oil pipeline project also does not make available thousands of US jobs for its construction. More importantly, it tends to maintain oil and its associated products, such as gasoline, at high prices. The US labor force is high priced compared to labor forces in most other developed countries, which is why much manufacturing has gone from the United States to those other countries. However, a little noticed fact is that with use of cheap energy, high-priced American labor could actually be more efficient (lower cost) than third country labor.
Randy, we have an opportunity to get the US economy back on track, but it will involve fighting a misplaced ideology of the Obama Administration. Please do your best.
Randy,
More talk in the News on clean energy. In spite of Solyndra and others, the White House continues to push "clean energy". The latest comment is that we must keep up with the rest of the world.
"Clean energy" are the buzzwords of the Obama Administration for anything that does not release CO2 in its final use. They mean wind and solar energy. The Administration doesn't want to talk about nuclear energy.
If you do the math, one of the problems is that one can't get more than about 10% of our energy needs from wind and solar, even with extensive commercial development. In addition, wind and solar are considerably less efficient dollarwise than using fossil fuels in our traditional generation of electricity from coal burning power plants and the use of gasoline in automotive vehicles.
Why the condemnation of CO2 as a bad actor? There are no data to show that it is detrimental to the environment. In fact, CO2 in air is a raw material source for plant growth.
I strongly suspect that ideology and taxation are behind the Administration's continuing push for clean energy. If the US follows the "clean energy" program, it will be operating an industrial economy at considerably less efficiency, than there would be with use of fossil tools. This would then put the US economy at a level more equal to Third World countries, which is one of the objectives of Marxists ideology.
The Obama Administration is using a twofold approach; throw taxpayer money at the development of inefficient energy processes and simultaneously inhibit production and use of fossil fuels. Inhibition of fossil fuel production has been demonstrated in the continued withholding of oil drilling permits from drilling companies, and the recent postponement (killing) of the Canadian oil pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
Postponement/killing of the Canadian oil pipeline project also does not make available thousands of US jobs for its construction. More importantly, it tends to maintain oil and its associated products, such as gasoline, at high prices. The US labor force is high priced compared to labor forces in most other developed countries, which is why much manufacturing has gone from the United States to those other countries. However, a little noticed fact is that with use of cheap energy, high-priced American labor could actually be more efficient (lower cost) than third country labor.
Randy, we have an opportunity to get the US economy back on track, but it will involve fighting a misplaced ideology of the Obama Administration. Please do your best.