Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145
No one is more anxious than me for alternative sources of energy that are clean, renewable and efficient. Would someone please answer a few questions.
First, it would seem to me that even if we were suddenly able to convert all transportation to an alternative source here in the U.S. and Western Europe, we would still be held hostage by the baron's and thugs who control the petro industry. So many global products are petro-based, and the demand for those products is increasing at such an alarming rate that there is no quick, Oil-Free answer for now. There is no Oil-Free answer that will free us from the very dangerous hostage situation we increasingly find ourselves under here in the U.S.
Secondly, it is my understanding that the latest techniques for extraction of shale and it's subsequent refining, are much different and far superior to that which is being used in abundance in Alberta right now. For that matter, it is also superior to traditional pumping and refining methods used in places such as the Middle East, or thug-states such as Venezuala or the many 'Stan's' of the former Soviet Union.
I agree that it is extremely important to convert as quickly as possible to renewable sources of energy for the needs of our transportation, and utilities.
However, it would seem glaringly obvious that given the realities of petro-based products and the current global situation facing us, it would be dangerously irreposnsible to not pursue a vast resource in our own back yard. Is this resource not far superior to the resource that we are now enslaved to? Are we wrong to place our trust in local officials, such as a Huntsman, rather than these disgusting thugs and barons ,whose mentality is from the Dark Ages, and now control a large percentage of our most basic economic make-up.
Yes, in a very big way to solar, wind generated geo-thermal, etc. But isn't this going to have to be a MULTI-PRONGED approach? Isn't it also going to take oil-shale to free us from the tyranny of our current situation?
|
Delts: What a thoughtful and appropriate response. Well reasoned. Conservation is a must to solve our exploding energy crisis and imploding economy. But conservation is not the only answer.
Alternative energy in the form of solar, wind, and geothermal is not viable environmentally, in addition to cost. Nor is it reasonable to think advances in technologies will make these technologies more environmentally friendly or cost effective BEFORE advances in fossil-fuel technology. We simply have 100 year head start with fossil fuels.
More important, we ignore the environmental consequences of harnessing these energy sources. For example, if solar power technology were 100 times more efficient, make it 1,000 times more efficient, the sprawl created by solar plants large enough to supply a significant portion of our necessary energy would make strip mining look attractive, forgetting about the exotic materials that must be processed and refined to make this technology realistic.
Hydrogen is a clean source of fuel. No doubt. And it is abundant. Next to nitrogen I think it is the most prevalent element on the planet. The problem with hydrogen is the necessary changes in infrastructure to make it feasible are absurd, with far more environmental consequences than burning fossil fuels. It will work in Iceland, where it is working, because there is no other source, and the changes in infrastructure are minor, considering the entire population of the country is less than 300K.
Geothermal is the least promising option. The small town I grew up in has a geothermal power plant, which is currently being doubled in size because of tax incentives. There are two big limitations on this option: one, the potential sites around the world (with the exception of Iceland again) with geothermal potential are few; second, the environmental consequences of geothermal energy are extreme. For one, the amount of acid or other caustic by-products (depending on the source of the power) is enormous. In addition, these by-products, which occur anytime you force water through the earth's crust, eat the crap out of turbine blades necessary to produce power, even blades that are aircraft quality made of exotic materials.
I hate to mention nuclear as an alternative energy source, because of the stigma associated with it in this country. But, as we all know, it also comes with its own set of consequences.
I think the problem is that we look at supposedly free and clean energy sources and think they are gifts from God, with no consequences. Has anyone ever seen that wind farm on a high ridge above Laramie WY? If there was ever anything more unsightly and noisy and an extravagant waste of precious natural resources, it's this farm. And it's positioned on one of the windiest places in the continental US.
Obviously, I take issue with positions thinking alternative energy sources are realistic options to the position we are in now. Conservation must be our first priority, but conservation alone will not solve the problem. And every other energy option, besides fossil fuels, I read about and investigate comes with consequences that are appalling, which no one ever talks about. If we are going to bet on technology to save our butts, I think we ought to bet on technology that is the simplest and best understood--fossil fuels. Hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) are very simple molecules, especially when compared to other molecules necessary in alternative energy sources, which is why there is so damn much of the stuff on planet earth, and not much gold or arsenic, which are essential ingredients in each of the alternative energy sources I discussed above.
Finally, I do not work for a coal or oil company, nor own stock in any either. I am just tired of trite, knee-jerk reactions with simplistic solutions to complex problems that are getting worse daily. Oversimplifying a problem just lengthens the time to solve it.
Prev
Linear Mode
