An Energy Briefing For The Next President

This is excellent - - from Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines by Richard A. Muller:

• The disasters of Fukushima and the Gulf oil spill were not nearly as catastrophic as many people think, they should not imply any major change in energy policy.
• Global warming, although real and caused largely by humans, can be controlled only if we find inexpensive or profitable methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China and the developing world.
• We have recently learned that we can exploit immense natural-gas reserves found in shale.  It's not an exaggeration to call this discovery a windfall.  Shale gas will play a central role in US energy policy over the next few decades.
• The United States is running low not on fossil fuel, but only on transportation fuel.  The keys to the future lie in synfuel (manufactured gasoline), natural gas, shale oil reserves, and improved automobile mileage.
• Energy productivity can be improved enormously.  Investments in efficiency and conservation can yield returns much better than those of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and what's more, the returns are tax-free.
• Solar energy is undergoing spectacular development, but its potential lies in solar cells, not in solar-thermal power plants.  The main competitor to solar is natural gas.
• Wind has significant potential as a supplemental source of electricity, but it requires a better power transmission grid.  Now that wind power production is growing rapidly, there is growing opposition from environmentalists.  The main competitor to wind is natural gas.
• Energy storage (to address this intermittency of wind and solar) is a difficult and expensive problem.  The most cost-effective approach is probably with batteries, although natural-gas backup might be cheaper.
• Nuclear power is safe, and waste storage is not a difficult problem.  Fears are driven by unfamiliarity and misinformation.  The main competitor to nuclear power is natural gas.
• The primary future value of biofuel will be for transportation energy security, not to prevent global warming.  Corn ethanol should not be considered a biofuel.  The main competitor to biofuel is natural gas.
• Synfuels are practical and important and, when developed, should keep the cost of oil to $60 per barrel or less.  For automobile fuel, synfuel manufactured from natural gas is one of the few energy source that might beat out compressed natural gas.
• There is a fast-breaking and potentially disruptive (in the good sense) new energy source: shale oil.  The US reserves are enormous, and practical means of extraction have been developed.  Shale oil appears to be cheaper to produce than synfuel, and it is likely to offer stiff competition to that industry.
• The hydrogen economy is going nowhere.  Some of the most romantic alternative-energy sources including geothermal, tidal energy, and wave energy, also have no large-scale future.
• Hydrid autos have a great future, but plug-in hybrids and all-electric automobiles do not; they cost much more to operate than do gasoline cars once you include battery replacement cost.  There is an exception: autos that run on lead-acid batteries with very short ranges (on the order of 40-60 miles), could achieve widespread use in China, India, and the rest of the developing world.
• Virtually none of the publicly proposed solutions to the danger of increased carbon dioxide, if implemented, have any realistic chance of working.  "Setting an example" fails if the example is one that the developing world can't afford to follow.  Perhaps the only workable solution is to encourage coal-to-shale-gas conversion in the developing world by vigorous sharing of US know-how.