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

[david sarff]

Terra preta.....; )
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm

>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

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live 
Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us