Ted,
There are a number of alternatives...solar, hydro, wind...but we don't spend nearly the monies researching them to make them more competive that we do on oil drilling.
On a small scale, these technologies make a marginal difference. But it's like trying to propel a QE2 by paddling with a teaspoon. It's just too little. Hydro is now very controvesrial, and for a good reason. Solar and wind are a huge eyesore, and don't amount to much. How do you keep New York City cool during a hot summer night?
There are a number of alternatives...solar, hydro, wind...but we don't spend nearly the monies researching them to make them more competive that we do on oil drilling.
As far as research, the solar panels are getting more and more efficient, but there is a limit that can never be surpassed, that is 100% efficiency. For the US, even 100% efficient solar panels are just peanuts. For Cairo, Ryad, or Tripoli, it may be the answer, and I would suggest to them to invest in those technologies.
As far as wind power, it's pretty much as far as it ever going to get, and no matter how much is invested in research, only marginal improvements can be expected.
As far as these technologies being competitive with oil, I think the oil will have to go a lot higher for this to happen, and even if it does, there is coal, which is a lot more price competitive, and coal is no picnic either from environmental point of view.
If you are concerned about CO2, and you are realistic, you have to be for nuclear. To moan about CO2 emissions, be against nuclear is equal to being unrealistic, naive or a coward.
Joe |
