RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

TV: (there is also the "limits of growth" but the dire
predictions of the Club of Rome have not come true).

AK: But I think the Club of Rome projection were based a 100 year long scenario. They still have another 65 years before you can declare them wrong. I am still sticking with the basic projections of the Club of Rome.

TV: Energy supply
When it comes to energy supply, "all" we have is what God, in His wisdom,
gave us in the way of fossil fuels, uranium, solar energy (the source of
hydro, wind and solar), whatever residual heat there is in the Earth
(geothermal energy) and some more esoteric energy sources such as tidal. My
guess is that this supply ought to be sufficient for all of us on Earth.
One of our mandates is to be good stewards of these resources. Are these
sources finite or infinite? Probably infinite, when we compare the solar
flux to the Earth's population. [snip}

AK: The energy is there. The question is whether we can extract it in amounts equivalent to what we have been used to with fossil fuels. I could easily do without 20% of my income and 20% of my energy and live a life not much different than I do now. The question is if that has to occur for everyone on the planet, then some people at the bottom will not have such a easy time. Furthermore, the loss of that 20% everywhere will have great ramifications as it reverberrates throughout lives of everyone. If everyone spends 20% less money, that means that much of the economy will suffer, and that will lead to additional negative effects. I can make a case that oil is the best energy source we may ever have and replacing it will not be easy, and any alternatives that are then put in place will lead to a nasty recession at best .

TV: Al writes, "Nuclear energy has some promise, but I really cannot agree that
it will be a satisfactory answer either." I don not agree. Nuclear power
has proven to be quite a good solution. France and Japan, in particular,
have seen the advantages of this form of energy production. Note that, in
both countries, most of the rail system is electrified and rail transport
is, basically, nuclear powered. Not that nuclear power is the sole
solution. An energy mix is needed. In my province, ~95% of the electrical
energy is obtained from hydro developments "up north" but even our
provincial utility is getting involved with wind power.

AK: I don't necessarily think there is obviously another better solution besides nuclear energy. If I were world dictator today I might indeed mandate that we start building nuclear plants right now, but not because I think it is such a great solution, but rather that it may be the only viable one. But with the political climate the way it is, nuclear is going to be a tough sell in the real world. I also think we have not seen all of the nuclear problems that will happen yet--most of plants are now reaching an age where problems of deterioration may give us some surprises; in addition, few of the world's nuclear plants have been completely decommssioned and the surrounding area returned to a comparable state that it had originally.

TV: Alternative lifestyle
As I have mentioned before in this forum, before we can even make an
intelligent decision on where to save energy, we need to know where the
energy is used for. Of course, we can always "let the market forces decide"
but that does not help the "widows and fatherless" much. I'm not convinced
that "market forces" and Christian values are synonymous. Society in NA has
evolved on the premise that fossil fuels are abundant and inexpensive.
That's why we have such a mobile society, sprawling suburbs, and global
economies. One has to wonder, though, if sitting in a traffic jam in a
private car between one's home and one's place of work ranks high on the
"quality of life" index. We seem to accept this way of life because we are
used to it or because we see no alternative.

AK: You sound pretty much like a peak oil advocate here. The real question is whether the world can really transition to something considerably different without great upheaval. The suburbs are enormously dependent on the automobile. There is no way we can move everybody to high density housing where they walk most places. That is the central issue: Is there any way the economy and lfestyles can shrink to compensate for the lack of cheap fossil fuels? No one I know thinks so, so they just assume that somehow technology will find a way to substitute for the cheap oil without causing a great shock. Everybody wants to hear good news. Let's hope it is possible.
Received on Thu Jan 5 14:09:44 2006