[Vision2020] Argicultural, Energy Sustainability (Was Moscow's Growth Policies...)

[Ted Moffett]

Kai, Dave et. al.

Newer technology and/or better technology can be applied to solve the fossil
fuel depletion/CO2/global warming crisis, but given the fantastic amounts of
energy derived from fossil fuels that powers modern industrial societies,
the problems are daunting.  Many blame the oil and auto industries for
conspiring to hold back progress in fuel efficiency or newer energy
technology, and while there is some truth to this claim, the bottom line is
that even if the oil and auto industries aggressively push for adoption of
more efficient technology and alternatives to fossil fuels, our energy
intensive lifestyles render solving the problems very difficult.

Dave mentioned carbon sequestration, which could help tremendously.  This is
being implemented somewhat experimentally with coal fired plants, but it
pushes up the cost of electricity, and coal reserves will deplete.  As a
short term solution, electric cars could be powered off coal fired plants
using CO2 sequestration.  Hydrogen as the fuel of the future is often
mentioned for autos (fuel cells), but this fuel takes a lot of energy to
produce, and there are other problems with storage and transportation of
hydrogen for autos.   Biofuels, while showing promise, cannot replace but a
fraction of fossil fuels without causing other problems.  Solar, wind,
nuclear fission, geothermal, tidal and wave generators, all can chip in to
provide power, but as with all of the alternatives to fossil fuels, there
are disadvantages of one sort or another.

It is easy to forget how much portable inexpensive energy is contained in a
gallon of gas...

One scientist I read did an extensive analysis of all the options and
concluded that fusion nuclear power with extraction of hydrogen in the high
temperatures inside the reactor, which is a more efficient way to produce
hydrogen fuel, was the best option for the future.  However, fusion power,
if it ever becomes practical, is decades away, so this is speculation.  The
author of the study advocated a "Manhattan" styled project investing
hundreds of billions of dollars to quickly solve these problems.  As Kai
pointed out, if we can put a man on the moon...Of course this was
accomplished quickly by a government taxpayer funded blank check!   This is
what we need, an all out investment in solving these energy problems, if not
from the private sector, to immediately begin weening ourselves off fossil
fuels, or use massive CO2 sequestration:

http://www.thestar.com/article/166819

"The scale of the global-warming problem warrants spending equivalent to
that of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program or even the Pentagon's
current technology program for developing a missile defence. That would give
us an advanced energy-technology program of about $10 to $20 billion a
year."

------------------------
The bottom line is that fossil fuels continue to be the cheapest and most
convenient way to supply the huge amounts of energy our society demands.
Though nuclear fission power is opposed by many for good reasons, given the
threat of global warming, relying much more on nuclear power might be a
better alternative than fossil fuels.  I'll take the nuclear waste and
nuclear accident problems over catastrophic climate change, in other words.

The economic pressures for cheap power render letting the marketplace solve
these problems ineffective, because by the time the marketplace responds to
the damage from global warming, global warming may have passed the "tipping
point."  There are two options that can solve the problem, neither of which
has much chance of occurring:  government regulation of CO2 output to reduce
output in absolute amounts, combined with an all out effort to develop and
implement alternative energy sources (CO2 is regulated in some nations now,
though not enough), and voluntary reduction in energy use.  Both of these
options are likely to have economic impacts that are very, very unpopular.
And even if one or both of these options was adopted by the USA, the world's
leader in fossil fuel use and CO2 output, what is to stop China or India
from increasing their fossil fuel consumption to build their economy to
establish the lifestyle that we enjoy in the USA?

I do not think it is realistic that technology will save us from the dire
consequences of global warming without reductions in the high energy
consumption fossil fuel powered lifestyle we take for granted.  Nor can we
assume that technology will allow us in the future, when fossil fuels
deplete, to maintain the same energy consumptive lifestyle.  Maybe this may
be possible, with fusion, solar, wind, etc.  But the prudent response to the
current reality is dramatic cut backs in fossil fuel use...something that is
very, very difficult to realistically accomplish on the global scale
required.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070117/98ba371e/attachment-0001.html