Re: Off Topic - "An Inconvenient Truth"


Jordan wrote:
kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Mark Atwood wrote:

Now, what does the rest of Greenpeace say?

I think they're pissed. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) was
actually at least the second major Green who came out pro nuke.
Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory/metaphor was the first. But, he
has despaired of all hope these days, thinks we're passed the tipping
point. Personally, I think we should be doing everything we can -
including nuclear power - to address global warming.

I think that this is the environmental movement doing everything they
can to render themselves totally irrelevant to solving global warming.
This is idiotic -- they bitch and moan about SUV's -- and they are
actually _opposing_ the one development which could seriously bring
down CO2 emissions.

Transportation counts for about a third of CO2. Its a simple equation -
increase efficiency, decrease emmisions. Of course, if people feel some
kind of weird-ass compensatory need to drive the Nineties version of a
station wagon, only their wallets will stop you. The real trick is
making it hurt. But, really, it is also simple. Just tax the hell out
of carbon. Their is no reason why anyone should be able to externalize
their costs.


Even electric and hybrid cars don't improve matters if the power to
charge them up comes from a coal or oil plant.

Oil is almost non-existant as a generator of electricity. 'Cept in
Hawaii. The next big thing in carbon are probably:

1) LNG (which will have the same geopolitical instabilities as oil, in
due time)
2) Gassfied Coal (which they will tell us can be sequestered, but won't
be able to pull off)

As for solar power,
this can marginally reduce fossil fuel emissions (mostly by powering
homes) but not to a degree that makes any real difference --

Solar needs to come down by a factor of five. That is in the cards, but
not in time. the real green contender right now is wind. But, it has an
obvious need fore a backup.

the
biggest electricity consumers are industries, and as long as the
electricity they consume comes from fossil fuel power plants, the
problem isn't solved.

Again, a carbon tax will address that problem. Pretty soon, that
decision won't be left to the U.S. The rest of the world will be
trading carbon dollars and they'll simply tariff U.S. products.


Some of the Deep Eeks talk about reducing our expectations in terms of
lifestyle, but that DEFINITELY isn't going to happen, the Tragedy of
the Commons decrees that, if the only way to get rich is to burn fossil
fuels, that's what people will do. People are NOT going to abandon the
goal of getting rich -- humans simply aren't built that way.

Which is why you and I will be paying a carbon tax after U.S. companies
(further) lose market share. Frankly, the Chinese are more responsible
than we are. And, they'll just demand that we pay up. They'll be
holding our paper, so they'll have the clout.


And that, of course, includes me.

Yup. If we were smart, we would be setting up plants in the coal states
to mass produce PMBRs. That would replace the jobs lost in coal and
give us a method of providing cheap, clean power to the third world
without proliferation risks.

McCabe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Energy myths
    ... The 10 big energy myths ... solar power is too expensive to be of much use ... hot enough to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. ... air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: (Andy Hewitt) Re: BT HomeHub + BBC iPlayer disconnects
    ... However, if the green energy is so much cheaper, then why are we being ... Running an existing power station provides power *NOW*, ... electricity when you need it. ... carbon trading if done as the business world asked for it ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Off Topic - "An Inconvenient Truth"
    ... Even electric and hybrid cars don't improve matters if the power to ... this can marginally reduce fossil fuel emissions (mostly by powering ... electricity they consume comes from fossil fuel power plants, ... goal of getting rich -- humans simply aren't built that way. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... > It has been accepted that gasoline use and other fossil fuel use is the ... > cause of the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ... > Themonuclear power could be used to power these atmospheric scrubbers and ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Oil-Independent Renewable Energy Sources
    ... future as enough research is being done into renewable energy to make ... furnace and transported to the factory, all very fossil fuel intensive ... but will it then still produce more electricity ... But we can make carbon based compounds from other sources.. ...
    (sci.energy)