Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (61853)	4/26/2008 7:39:18 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541933

What I liked about that piece was the emphasis on getting pragmatic rather than religious about environmentalism. What I think he glossed over, though, was how developing countries would perform environmentally if we adopted his advice. I have no reason to think that they would pollute less. If he has reason to think so, I would like to hear it.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (61853)	4/26/2008 1:57:53 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541933

>>What, then, is the least pernicious alternative — and the most environmentally, financially and ethically sound? Unfortunately, for a while longer it is not just to trust in promising new technologies like wind and solar power; for decades to come, these will only provide a fraction of our energy needs. Instead, aside from greater conservation, we must develop more traditional energy resources at home. That would mean building more nuclear power plants, intensifying efforts at mining and burning coal more cleanly — and developing more domestic oil, while retooling our vehicles to be even lighter and more fuel-efficient.<< Bob - These two paragraphs are, in a nutshell, where we differ in our views on how best to deal with this crisis. The authors make the flat statement "wind and solar power; for decades to come, will only provide a fraction of our energy needs." That statement is offered without any kind of supporting logic or facts. I don't think such a statement contributes meaningfully to the discussion of this problem, nor to the solution. I have several problems with accepting that statement on its face, as you seem to do. Let me first point out that I agree completely with the basic premise, as far as it goes. Sure, wind and solar will most likely only provide a fraction of our energy over the next couple of decades. What I disagree with is the implication that we should not expend our efforts on building solar and wind plants now, because the output won't be great enough. Any new plants we build over the next few decades, no matter what their source of energy, will provide only a fraction of our electricity needs, unless we plan to build more generating capacity than already exists, and retire all the old plants. What we need to know is how big a fraction of our needs could solar and wind plants provide? How does that fraction compare with the fraction that could otherwise be provided by new coal and nuclear plants? There is also the implication that it takes such a long time to build wind and solar plants that we can't afford to wait for them. Anyone who is selling that idea is simply not aware of the current state of solar thermal power generation. And it's not as if coal and nuclear plants spring out of the ground overnight. If you want to look at this situation in a non-simplistic way, it behooves you to consider all the alternatives, and not just the ones that benefit the present players in the energy industry. - Allen PS: I believe that distributed solar thermal and voltaic generation, and rooftop mounted vertical wind turbines could allow a majority of American homes to generate all, or most of, the electricity they need to operate. If we get started next year, it wouldn't even take a decade to put a huge dent in our need for big power plants. These kinds of ideas don't even seem to make it into the calculus of the sources you quote. Why not?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (61853)	4/27/2008 11:25:38 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

For A New, More Realistic Environmentalism By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON Some quick replies, Bob. I'm no fan of Hanson's work--too bellicose and manichean on foreign policy. But . . . . some thoughts. 1. This purports to be about the environment but I smell a much stronger frame, one which piggybacks on environmental concerns. And that's his usual foreign policy gig. In this case, it's more about the "dictator" countries that provide oil, than about US dependence on oil. But it, on this point, lacks even a careful analysis of the governments of oil rich countries and the possible effect of a large withdrawal of US buying. He simply uses his "dictator" countries as ad hoc illustrations. 2. He argues that coal and nuclear energy and more drilling in the US would be transition policies on the way to more serious reforms. But neither strikes me as transitional. Such transitional policies are more likely to become as permanent as the present dependence on oil. Coal, so far as I know, still has serious pollution problems, certainly worse than natural gas. The nuclear energy industry still has not solved the waste storage problem. Etc. 3. And none of this rather isolationist argument addresses the broader problems of global pollution. So, once again, it doesn't strike me as a piece about the environment; rather it's one about a rather isolationist view of US foreign policy.