Thread: Global warming or not?
View Single Post
Old 12-06-2009, 04:08 PM   #279
PKFFW
Wizard
PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PKFFW ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,791
Karma: 33500000
Join Date: Dec 2008
Device: BeBook, Sony PRS-T1, Kobo H2O
Quote:
Originally Posted by pshrynk View Post
The problem with that scenario is that it presents an all or nothing calculation. If we build nuclear plants and develop wind farms and tidal generators and low head hydro elactric and roof top converters and many other types of alternate ways of getting electricity, then we would be using less natural gas and coal to generate electricity. The NG could then be used as a means to power transportation and we have plenty of that in our own country, as well as ability to produce methane by processing the garbage we throw out every day. That would lead to diminished foreign oil and some improvement of air quality.

I'm not up on what we can do with coal to decrease CO2 emmisions, but some bright boy will figure that out eventually. What we need is to convince Big Oil that they need to pioneer the movement away from their current product into what could easily be their "new product." They're just rather hide bound at the moment and have not yet started to shift that direction.
Agreed that we should definitely be moving away from oil and coal as soon as possible. The less we use the better and the less dependant on the middle east supply the better as well.

I guess what I found interesting about it was just the sheer magnitude of the problem. The scenario discussed was about supplying the world with the same amount of energy it uses today. It didn't even take into account population expansion over the next 20-30 years and yet there really is no way we can provide that energy from "clean" sources. The best we could realistically hope for is to get maybe 15-20%(probably less) of our needs from clean sources. That would be good, a definite improvement, but even that would take a huge effort and wouldn't really make a huge difference to GW.

Maybe it would be better to be thinking in an either/or way. Maybe it's time to take the risk of putting all our eggs in one basket and go all out for the one power source that could really solve our problems. Risky but looks like our only real chance of making a difference if GW is in fact caused in significant part by humans.

Cheers,
PKFFW
PKFFW is offline