On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:40:56 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:42 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
It doesn't matter whether or
not the rise in CO2 is the cause of warming.
Sure it does. No problem can be solved without first finding at least
one culprit to blame. Once the causes/culprits/conspirators/etc are
identified, we can then move forward towards a solution.
Unfortunately, most of the energy "solutions" offered are variations
on either austerity programs, genocide, redistribution of wealth, or
indirect self-enrichment.
I hope that's a joke.
I wish it were a joke. I've seen assignment of the blame take
precedence over a suitable solution enough times to make me suspect
that it's some component of human nature or element of bureaucracy.
Global warming is one of the best examples. The ratio of publications
dedicated to assigning the blame, versus investigating a solution, is
rather high. I recall watching a panel on TV, that was allegedly
looking into solutions for global warming. A few minutes were devoted
to several grandiose schemes, but the majority of the show was again
an attempt to fix the blame on everything from bovine flatulence to
industrialization. This was packaged as an attempt to "explain" how
global warming works, but was really a poorly disguised blame game.
You expect "the market" -- which is driven more by profit than altruism --
to provide a useful solution?
You expect the government, which is driven more by establishing and
growing a power base, than doing anything useful for its constituents,
to provide a useful solution?
Ok, answering a question with a question is not really an answer, but
I couldn't resist. Lacking any better alternatives, I do think the
market will save our collective posteriors once again as it has
countless times in the past. I'll spare you the standard lecture on
greed and need. Suffice to say that if we run out of fossil fuels,
numerous enterprising entrepreneurs will provide a variety of
alternatives. The winners will be what the consumer buys, not what
the government mandates. I have a wild enough imagination to suggest
many alternatives, none of them ideal, but all of them better than not
having any sources of usable energy. And yes, they will be dirty,
have numerous side effects, probably pollute the hell out of some
corner of the planet, and possibly even kill a few early adopters, but
it will work and sell.
Where do you come off claiming most of the solutions involve "austerity
programs, genocide, [or] redistribution of wealth". (I'm not sure what you
mean by "indirect self-enrichment". Dale Gribble selling carbon offsets?)
Austerity programs are those that offer either a penalty for over-use,
or an incentive or subsidy for switching to alternatives. Neither
method will survive for long. Subsidizing solar installations is fine
for the short term, but cannot be supported for maybe a few more years
as solar adoption grows. All incentives seem to do is accelerate the
process of adoption. If you want real accelerated conversion, just
watch what happens when you run out of oil or turn off the
electricity.
Genocide has been mentioned in this thread. It's more politically
correct packaged as "population reduction" or "birth control". Judging
by the increasing world population, neither is working. Eventually,
someone is going to implement a short cut, and that's genocide.
Redistribution of wealth is simply taxes. At this time, taxes are a
big chunk of the cost of gasoline. In California, it's about
$0.40/gallon, which sells for about $3.20/gallon. There are
"conservation" solutions advocated that would provide a counter
incentive to consumption by taxing the hell out of gasoline, while
using the revenue to fund "research" into alternatives. This might
actually work, if the "research" offered any worthwhile solutions to
investigate.
I don't really know much about selling carbon credits. My premature
conclusion is that it's a great way for high consumption countries and
industries to continue belching greenhouse gasses.
How does the gradual replacement of carbon-producing energy sources with
carbon-neutral or low-carbon sources induce "austerity" or "genocide"?
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/
There's no connection. I've already covered austerity and genocide.
Which low carbon sources are you suggesting? None of the major
alternatives offered (except nuclear) will scale to the current
consumption levels. Hydrogen is a bad joke. Compare costs. If we
don't change consumption, and simply replace coal fired generation
with solar, the resultant electricity will optimistically cost 5 times
as much. Can you say "redistribution of wealth"?
Some relative costs of generation:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
Nobody has an easy answer to the energy problem that will scale well
and satisfy everyone's requirements. That means that the status quo
will remain until the day we run out of oil.
Which is what the oil companies want. Why should we give into them, when
there /are/ solutions?
That is what the people (consumers) also want. Nobody is going to
adopt a more expensive or inconvenient solution until they're force to
do so. Price and profit drives the market, not a fiat decision by the
oil cartels. To be fair, they're trying to stretch the supply as long
as possible, and delay the inevitable oil wars, where the consuming
countries do battle over what's left. Need a really great incentive?
Just start another war over oil.
We've also been here before. During the 17th century, England had an
energy crisis of sorts when it ran out of wood, which was needed for
ship construction and heating. That's when the 14th century ban on
coal burning was magically lifted and England switched to coal.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/environmentalism-in-1306/725\
Comments? It's a perfect example of running out of an energy
producing resource and substituting a not so convenient and more dirty
alternative. We've done it once before and will do it again.
Incidentally, the English crown did a land grab of most of the forests
in England in order to insure that there would be enough big trees
needed for ship building. Meanwhile, the peasants froze during the
worst part of the little ice age. We're going to have more of the
same when we run out of oil.
I suspect something similar will happen with nuclear power. When the
demand appears, the "problems" with nuclear will magically disappear.
They apparently already have. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Yep. I like pebble bed reactors. Obviously, I have had no experience
with one, but from what I read, they seem a good solution. The rest
is politics and perception. Perception is the big problem. Like
dirty coal in 17th century England, nuclear is perceived as being
inherently dangerous and polluting. The perception will need to
change before there's going to be any wide spread conversion. My
guess is that the 3rd world countries will lead the conversion,
leaving the major powers behind.
Of course, very little is being done about it.
Yep, because there's little (financial) incentive to do anything
different at this time. I got a good hint in 1974, when I decided
that the energy crisis of 73-74 would produce a market for a better
electric vehicle. So, I designed and partially built what I
considered to be a better machine. There was considerable interest
until the day the Arabs turned the oil back on, when all interest
evaporated. Lesson learned... nobody wants a solution to a
non-existent problem.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558