I start out with the fact that controlled fusion is not economical. It will probably be so at some point in the future, we hope, but does not appear to be a solution to the problem, except longer term.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment