Then I apologise for mis-interpreting your motives.
Yup, but what else we gonna do? If you don't approach a problem with at
least the *hope* that the solutions you try stand a chance of working,
then you're defeated before you even start. And these *are* problems that
need to be addressed in an urgent and practical manner.
Agreed. Perhaps we should encourage engineering education for
politicians. Or at least let unbiased engineers steer/recommend the
energy policies - not petroleum company executives.
Cute quote, but not necessarily true. I provide technical solutions to
problems for a living. Not everything I've built has led to further
problems! ;-)
Not always true I suppose - not usually true when dealing with
electronics - nearly always true when governments "solve" problems.
Well, you're going off on a bit of a tangent there. Nobody's talking
about limitless free energy, just making best use of the resources
available to us at the moment - wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal,
etc., to reduce carbon emissions instead of recklessly wasting our fossil
fuel reserves and buggering up the climate at the same time, which is what
we're doing now.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, governments have a way of spinning
the solution to problems in ways that benefit corporations, and that
scares me. Their solutions don't necessarily solve problems - more
often hide, or postpone, or deflect attention, or generate propaganda,
or just exacerbate them.
Fusion reactors... BWAHAHAHAHA! Ain't gonna happen. If it ever does,
it'll be LONG, long after they could have done any good towards solving
the present environmental problems.
Ain't going to happen - I think even the scientists getting the grant
money and building the containment vessels know that. But if it did
happen . . . what would be the consequences of unlimited energy?
Bechtel and Halliburton are both singing the praises on nuclear
fission as being a "green" source of energy.
The timing of the Japanese nuclear incident was perfect for spiking
Bush's push for more nuclear plants.
Actually, you may have the clue to the solution to the problem of
overpopulation right there. Because it's pretty well established that
sperm count among males in the "industrialised" nations is dropping
dramatically, whether due to estrogen-like industrial pollutants or
whatever isn't certain, but the effect is there for all to see. Western
birth rates *are* falling, even as we speak. Overpopulation isn't the
root cause of the environmental problems that confront us, but even if it
was I think it's a problem that will sort itself out pretty soon.
Do you think there's a biological reason for falling growth rates in
industrial countries? I rather thought it was women having jobs,
different lifestyles, and perhaps even some realization that life
would be a lot less demanding if the population wasn't growing.
Wouldn't estrogen like pollutants reduce sex drive in men? and
perhaps augment it in women. Not my field.
Well, as far as biofuels are concerned, it's an emerging technology and
probably needs more "seed-money" than most to see it up and running. Then
again, relative costs will always influence priorities but let's face it -
the price of fossil fuels... no, that's not quite right... The *cost* of
fossil fuels is never likely to go DOWN, is it? As for the rest of the
alternative fuel sources, we are in total agreement, and as far as
governmental support is concerned, it's all down to lobbying and the
*perception* of priorities amongst us - the voters. If we make enough
political noise, we *can* get that wind-farm raised. We did it here, in
Scotland. Several times. We'll do it again. And so can you.
I don't really have a problem with seed money, just how it is spent.
I remember reading about some company that was essentially just
grinding up coal adding binders making briquettes out of it and
collecting subsidies because it qualified as a new source of energy-
simply because of the way the incentive program was worded and run.
They were selling their product at slightly lower cost than
unprocessed coal and there was no facility that could use the stuff
more effectively.
China - has been making coal briquettes for many years and has tiny
one room heaters that are specifically designed to burn them
efficiently, if not cleanly.
Ethanol is already problematic. Easy to pass a law saying that
ethanol must be incorporated in gas by 2015 or whatever - different
matter to actually do it. There would need to be lot of
infrastructure in place to make it viable across the country and not
just in the grain belt - and that could mean trucking it around until
the petroleum companies have enough incentive to build additional
pipelines.
Like the prezident's Rah! Rah! hydrogen speech - "most plentiful
element in the universe, we will harness it to meet our energy needs
well into the next millennium, blah, blah . . ." Sure we will. I had
to laugh - but it is scary to think that a president could actually
believe that himself, or that enough people would buy it just because
he said so.
That's the sort of thing that makes me doubtful of our ability to
solve energy problems.
I'm more worried about the methane hydrate hidden under the Siberian
Tundra, meself. A LOT more accessible and volatile than the sub-oceanic
clathrates. Mind you, could be a viable fuel resource in itself, if we
learn to harvest it in time...
Yeah.
Yabbut... once you KNOW you've tweaked the thermostat past boiling point,
and the boiler's gonna explode, it kinda makes sense to at least TRY to
cool things down a little while you still can, doesn't it?
No argument there. What I think we are likely to do are some things
that will cost a lot, benefit some companies inequitably, penalize
others, be marginally effective, and be much too little and too late.
But then I watch a lot of CSPAN, RSS feeds, and avoid the network
news, so my perspective is different than most.
I think addressing population growth would be more along the lines of
a cure rather than a remedy.Cheers
bob
