<div>Kai, Dave et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is easy to forget how much portable inexpensive energy is contained in a gallon of gas... </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/166819">http://www.thestar.com/article/166819</a></div>
<div>
<p>"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."
</p>
<p>------------------------</p></div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>