Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Energy -- It Just Doesn't Add Up

By Brian Boeheim, Author, Political Common Sense for America
July 13, 2009   |   37 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

37 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 37
July 14, 2009
Truth/Lie #1
They look exactly alike and act the same in the atmosphere but there is a difference between a molecule of CO2 exhaled by my cattle and one exhausted by the truck taking them to market. One is part of the short-time surface carbon cycle(hay-cow-air-hay) while the other had been sequestered for millions of years as petroleum. Our grandchildren will have a certain answer to the question of the significance of that distinction.
No image available
Comment
2 of 37
Anonymous
July 14, 2009
The author writes: "3) only one third of the energy put into a power plant comes out as electricity, the rest is wasted;"

This is approximately true for a coal-fired steam driven turbine where no district heating (as is done, for instance in NYC) is employed to use the ~65% waste heat. For a combined cycle methane plant the efficiency is more than 60%. If I designed a coal fired steam turbine with mercury as the working fluid I'd get a better efficiency than using water steam. The author is rather sloppy in his statements and it gets worse as the article proceeds.
Steven
Comment
3 of 37
July 14, 2009
Brian is right! We should be incentivated to be self-generating and independent from the grid. "They" want us to be micro generating fot the grid not self-sufficient but when the sun shines its for everybody. "They" will want to patent sunpower next?
Good article Brian!
Rui in Sunny Lisbon, Portugal (EU)
Comment
4 of 37
I agree with much of what Brian says but he is a little loose with the truth.

History shows us that mass production, which is what happens in large power stations, is always cheaper than cottage industries and better for the economy.

Electricity delivered to the home from a nuclear or coal/gas power station is substantially cheaper (and more reliable) than solar roof panels will probably ever be and probably cheaper than most micro-power technology as well with the possible exception for those that live in cold climates and can use combined cycle generators effectively.

Emissions from all agriculture (excluding forestry) is less than from stationary energy so the comment about farm animals seems spurious.
Comment
5 of 37
July 15, 2009
------"History shows us that mass production, which is what happens in large power stations, is always cheaper than cottage industries and better for the economy."---------

Prove it.

------"Electricity delivered to the home from a nuclear or coal/gas power station is substantially cheaper (and more reliable) than solar roof panels will probably ever be and probably cheaper than most micro-power technology as well with the possible exception for those that live in cold climates and can use combined cycle generators effectively. "--------


Prove it.
Comment
6 of 37
July 15, 2009
Do you believe that the earth can support/sustain 9 - 10 billion people?

At what level of sustained energy consumption, and at what standard of living?
Comment
7 of 37
July 15, 2009
From Barcelona (Catalonia), and near 50 years old, I just want to remark two ideas.

- Clean energy is a World wide problem.

- Nukes would be better accepted for society ( or not ) if it is clear explained and assumed all related costs, in my opinion most important
* All world effective control ( think on Txernobil)
* Transparent residuals storage.

Just another point. In my opinion energy demand will not double in any developed country. Nowadays crisis will reduce demand harder than we think today. Energy invoice is cheap, we pay more in taxes that in effective kWh cost.

Thank you for your interesting article

Cesc Pons
Comment
8 of 37
July 15, 2009
"Electricity delivered to the home from a nuclear or coal/gas power station is substantially cheaper (and more reliable)"

Only if you discount the hidden costs of nuclear (tax subsidies for construction, maintenance during operational life, and decommissioning) and of coal/gas (paying for co2 reduction through taxes). And as for the reliability of Nuclear, a report in the UK revealed that over the last decade, there have been 1700 dangerous events within the UK nuclear industry, including one where a cooling pond was leaking and a disaster prevented only because an off-duty engineer used the laundry and noticed the water leaking in over the laundry room floor! The reprocessing plant at Thorp in the UK may need to close for a period, and cannot provide the revenue required to finance the building of new nuclear power stations (and may actually be sued by the German government for failing to provide the material it was contracted to), so guess where the energy companies are turning for funding...yep, the taxpayer!

"Clean coal" requires 20-40% more fuel to generate the same amount of energy, so the efficiency of coal fired power plants will drop to around 20% meaning a further increase in the price to consumers for coal fired energy. Not to mention, of course, that both coal and nuclear are supremely dependent on oil for both their extraction, processing and transport! All this information is freely available on your local friendly internet.
Comment
9 of 37
July 15, 2009
Natasha has made a sweeping statement part way through her last paragraph. I know that in the past coal mines in Yorkshire UK used electricity derived from local coal fired power stations to run most of their operations. The only oil used as a fuel rather than as a lubricant, coolant insulator or hydrolic fluid was for the earth moving machines which were used to grade the coal stock piles. There was probably more oil used in the emploees cars to get them to work than in the whole production process from coal face to generator output.

I think that there is scope to reduce energy use in the rich world, there are several technologies which could make this happen and it might well be that the peak electrical load does go up as part of a total reduction in energy use.

Due to the design of most high voltage electrical systems a doubling of load does not need a doubling of the electrical infrastructure, in the UK a fulluy loaded system would need 50% extra infrastructure in practice the figure might be less than 50% as parts of the system already have spare capacity.

The real problem is not technology we have most of what we need and there are scientists and engineers who will be able to make the rest, where we may fall down is in lack of will power to tackle the problem.

In Europe we are going in the generaly correct direction and I belive that in the USA there are big changes going on with regards to policy on things like car fuel efficency etc.

Unfortunatly its a bit like trying to catch a train which is accelerating very slowly, theres a good chance we can catch it but to do so we need to run faster than we are doing at the moment.
Comment
10 of 37
July 15, 2009
I cant believe we are still talking about nuclear power. It was a niche market, It is at the moment, and it ALWAYS will be.
There is no way the world to increase its 436nuclear reactors to a substantial number in order to be a significant share of our energy(!) portfolio (by significant I mean more than 20%).

In order to do that we must at least triple the reactors and do it in reasonable time for example 20 years. We must add at least 800 reactors which means 40 per year. This is impossible. Not in the current economical and political situation. Besides we dont have trained people, resources, uranium, etc to do this.

My question again: Why do we still keep talking about nuclear power?
No image available
Comment
11 of 37
Anonymous
July 15, 2009
As someone who worked with radioactive elements, as so had to learn about them, I find it odd that none of the posters or the author of the article mentions the half life of plutonium. Plutonium is produced in nuclear power plants and we must store it until it's radiation degrades to a safe level, or live with it's radiation.
At present we "store" most of this in the cooling ponds at the power plants, Yucca Mountain is on hold, we have no effective way to deal with the plutonium the world is producing now, although people are trying.
Perhaps we should solve this problem before we build more nukes, put the horse before the cart so to speak.

Coal plants emit mercury into the air. Scrubbers reduce this, so the mercury can be stored in the coal ash, along with the arsenic and other stuff. The mercury is not "gone", it is concentrated instead of dispersed.
In some ways this is an improvement, and in other ways it is not. Perhaps we should decide whether or not producing all this mercury and arsenic is something we want to do at all, and focus on what is best instead of what is cheapest today.

My daughter is pregnant. Her doctor told her not to eat fish while pregnant, they have too much mercury for the fetus. I asked her how many states of the United States is this a standard Doctor recomendation for pregant women to avoid fish, and she answered without hestitation, "50 states".

The question is not whether we should stop coat plants, the question is how are we going to do it. Do we spend more money for energy, or more money for health care for our degraded bodies?
Comment
12 of 37
July 15, 2009
I would like to know the sources of the data saying that 50% of the CO2 is produced by farm animals. Even if that is true, than wouldn't that be good? Animal CO2 should have a carbon nuetral footprint. In Eons past when man wasn't much of an influence on the earth, there must have been much greater numbers of animals on the land than there are today. They didn't hurt the enviroment than did they? Animals are natural and the nature is as close to perfect as you get right??? All this makes me believe even more that this CO2 pollution is a scare tactic for the Gaia worshippers.
Comment
13 of 37
July 15, 2009
"The only oil used as a fuel rather than as a lubricant, coolant insulator or hydrolic fluid was for the earth moving machines which were used to grade the coal stock piles"

So still using large amounts of oil then? And the transport of coal from mine to power plant?

Plus, using electricity from local coal fired power plants actually emits *more* CO2 than using oil, because coal has a higher carbon density than oil.
Comment
14 of 37
July 15, 2009
"The dilemma is that any revenue created in an attempt to make a plant more energy efficient or productive would have to go 100% to the customers. If the plant developed a system for recovering heat, normally lost during production, and distributed it as a very low cost way for local homeowners to heat their homes, the utility stockholders couldn't benefit one cent. Or, what if energy production could be made more efficient through replacing a more expensive cooling tower with new less expensive technology? Again, this would cost the stockholders by forcing them to incur the capital expenditure, but since their operating cost would go down it would negatively impact their revenue and in turn their total return. This regulatory process puts a huge roadblock in the way of investing in power plant efficiencies and actually supports the building of expensive, inefficient plants."

One solution would involve the emerging cap and trade regulations. Basically whenever a utility is able to increase their production of electricity per unit amount of fuel, that should be credited to them under the CO2 credits, which can either be applied to another plant or sold on the emissions credit market. This will make increasing efficiency and even using currently available heat recovery technologies to generate additional power as a new revenue source.

Thomas H. Pritchett
Cedar Crest College
Comment
15 of 37
July 15, 2009
I find the authors points to be valid overall, despite claims to the contrary. He and I must be of the same age. I remember the coming Ice Age and ZPG, all those nice trendy causes and fears of a bygone era. That said some of the finer points he makes are subject to debate. That isn't his point or argument. I'm appalled by the rather intense discourse I see on many of these blogs. We seemed to be absorbed in a "my idea's right and yours is wrong" mindset. Solar, wind, biofuels, nuclear, and others may have their place. The author is arguing that we need to go beyond that and apply some commen sense, always the scarcest of commodities and always the most essential.

I shudder when I see statements about "how many people do you think the world can sustain?" I wonder what the poster is suggesting? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had their versions of population control. What is yours? Shall we let Africa disappear in an Aids epidemic? Do we withold immunizations from the "wrong people"? The possibilities are endless, but are all extremely dire and dreadful.

And finally for Mr. Miller's benefit, nice point. The CO2 levels now are historically on the mid- range of the normal curve. They are significantly lower than they were in the Jurassic era, as near as data can tell. Of course during that era plant life was abundant enough to feed dinosaurs.
Comment
16 of 37
July 15, 2009
Boeheim wrote "...and that CO2 emissions were going to put us into the next ice age. Yes, you heard me right. See, we were in a climatic cooling cycle, so the colder winters gave rise to the pseudo scientific appraisal that the polar caps would expand and cover most of North America if we didn't control our pollution. Funny, how so many scientists abandoned that research in order to capture grants for the more popular "Global Warming" hypothesis."

What shoddy research from the author, which leads me to question any of his contentions and whether any expertise or fact-checking is needed to write a column for Renewable Energy World.

There were a handful of papers suggesting a cooling trend. This was picked up by some of the popular press like Newsweek and National Geographic. Some of these papers pointed to Earth's orbital motion (e.g., Hays et al in Science, Dec 1976) while others pointed to aerosols (e.g., Rasool & Schneider in Science, July 1971). Both types of papers acknowledged CO2 from fossil fuel use as a warming factor, not cooling. And even then there were more papers looking at warming possibilities from greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientific process worked. Additional research and evidence led the cooling hypothesis to fade and to growing recognition of the warming trend and the contributions of anthropogenic GHG emissions.

This was just normal scientific debate, not money grubbing scientists slanting their work and shifting positions to get grants. (Besides, you'd probably make more money on the skeptics side with fossil fuel industry money.)

It continues to amaze me how many people think that thousands of scientists in the relevant disciplines, the National Academies, Amer Geophysical Union, Amer Meteorological Society, and other well-respected scientific organizations here and abroad are part a vast conspiracy that has managed to slant vast amounts of evidence and analysis across numerous disciplines--and to what end?
Comment
17 of 37
July 15, 2009
Ken R wrote

"I shudder when I see statements about "how many people do you think the world can sustain?" I wonder what the poster is suggesting? Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had their versions of population control. What is yours? Shall we let Africa disappear in an Aids epidemic? Do we withold immunizations from the "wrong people"? The possibilities are endless, but are all extremely dire and dreadful."

Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP175M.pdf

Billions Face Food Shortages, Study Warns

http://www.truthout.org/011109A

Doom of humanity

http://www.lucidpages.com/Doom.html

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity
Union of Concerned Scientists

World Food and Human Population Growth

http://www.panearth.org/panearth/
http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/union.html
Comment
18 of 37
July 15, 2009
Mr. Boheim has a very simplistic view of energy issues:

Yes, CFL's have mercury in them, but it's tiny compared the amount released burning coal over the lifetime of the incandescent bulbs they replace. If we ever generate a significant amount of power with renewables, then we can revisit that issue. I was in state legislature working on energy issues, and believe me, it wasn't foisted on users - retailers fought it tooth and nail, and utilities were only luke-warm about it. If anything, it buys some time until LED lighting technology becomes economically viable.

Quit repeating the Cow-Fart theory to minimize human contributions to global warming! Methane only represents about 10-15% of atmospheric carbon, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere, compared to CO2. Also, cows "recycle" carbon that is on the surface, as opposed to burning carbon fuels that have been locked up under ground for millions of years.

Don't make the mistake of thinking nuclear power will be economically viable in the future. Nuclear is generating cheap power because buiding costs are already amortized, or because utilities went bankrupt because of those costs and sold out at 10 cents on the dollar. The cost to build a plant in the 60's was about $1 per watt (i.e. about a billion dollars for a GW plant), but today it is estimated to cost around $10-15 per watt, on par with or even higher than solar.

I was driving my first car during energy crisis of the 70's and 80's, and there was no press about global warming or peak oil at the time. Most of that started around the mid 90's... Even if we haven't hit peak oil yet, global warming is a good enough reason to cut back on fossil fuels.

The biggest problem today is that oil and coal companies spend enormous amounts of money to buy votes in Congress, to the detriment of the environment, in order to guarantee profits. Most of the GW denial is financed by dirty industries like oil and coal.

I'd write more, but I'm out of space…
Comment
19 of 37
July 15, 2009
Regarding mike-miller-78300's post on animals. I don't know where the 50% figure cited came from.

One would think animals in nature would have a roughly carbon neutral footprint. But our agricultural system is not animals in nature.

Have you visited a "concentrated animal feeding operation"--CAFO? We're not talking bison and wildebeast roaming the range or chickens pecking for bugs and seeds on Old McDonald's farm. We're talking grain, soy, and fishmeal fed, concentrated, and fairly energy intensive livestock operations with massive amounts of animal waste piled or placed in lagoons to ferment away (methane is far more potent GHG than CO2--and energy recovery from farm animal waste is an underemployed opportunity to recover energy and mitigate emissions) in addition to emissions coming out of the animals directly. The beef and dairy cattle and most of our other livestock are not so natural, not only in how theiy're fed and raised but even in their genetic makeup. Nature did not create Jersey and Guernsey milk machines or turkeys that can hardly walk or layer hens that crank out eggs at industrial rates.
Comment
20 of 37
July 15, 2009
Strangest article I've seen in a long time.

Nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive. That's why no new plants are being built in the U.S. Creating jobs by pouring government money on projects is called a public works project. It is not how a free market works because it is not sustainable as the former Soviet Union attests.

An impending ice age was just a hypothesis being investigated by a handful of researchers. It was blown out of proportion by the lay press, which always exaggerates to attract readership. The hypothesis was quickly overturned because that is how science works. The Internet urban legend that global warming consensus is the result of researchers chasing grants is asinine.

A natural gas generator in your home vastly more expensive. You trade line losses from the gird for a less efficient power generator in your basement. Co generation (capturing the motor's waste heat) improves the generator's efficiency, but when you can't use any more waste heat, it must sit idle or cost you money by generating electricity at a lower efficiency than the grid. You essentially reduce your electric bill by increasing your natural gas bill.

If that were not true, we would all have one, and instead of supplying a small amount of our home electricity, they would provide all of it. Any mechanical engineer can explain why. That's why a 777 uses two big engines with attendant losses instead of a 100 small ones with attendant losses.

Water, gas, sewer, and electrical grids are now communities capture economy of scale. That's why we don't all have to drill and maintain a well, (with its pump, piping and accumulator), or a septic tank system (and attendant pumps and piping), or compost our own waste for methane, or generate our own power with our own reciprocation internal combustion engine powered generators in our basements.

And as another poster mentioned, cap and trade is a way to regulate utilities for efficiency.
Comment
21 of 37
July 15, 2009
If nukes are so safe, than why do they still need Price-Anderson??

Also ""Why is it always about the consumer?"" because the cheapest new energy is conservation. There is NO way renewables will supplant fossil fuel energy, so while it is against the "our lifestyle is not negotiable" meme, sooner or later people will be forced to realize that unlimited growth and consumption simply is not possible on a finite planet.

Todd
Comment
22 of 37
July 15, 2009
On site energy is the future. It will be so because of the inherit inefficiencies in the central power concept. CP is DEAD! The utilities just do not know it yet.

That said yes, solar PV will be king because of its simplicity and longevity, wind will play a role but only in rural areas and not city and subdivision and once you get your power consumption down far enough take the excess energy from your PV array and power that electric car and or your H electrolyser to generatte that small amount of H to cook with. But for that matter cook with soalr when possible.

I started with incandescent lighting, went to CF lighting starting in 1995 and now switing to LED lighting (and of course natural day lighting also) So lighting consumes almost no energy. I believe the energy requirements will continue to go DOWN not up as long as we continue to become aware of phantom load.

The reality is that power consumption should be going DOWN not up when you consider the advances in lighting and electrons.

John D'Angelo
BeUtilityFree, Inc.
Comment
23 of 37
July 15, 2009
Just saw the documentary HOME -- recommend it to everyone -- and it talks to the human burden on the biosphere - very interesting / dire indeed. The posts immediately prior to this made me think of one statistic mentioned in the movie --> the rapid deforestation of the amazon (they mentioned a percent deforested, can't remeber exactly...40% ish i think) is being replaced primarilly by two things: livestock farming, and soy bean agriculture. The interesting point, however, was that 95% (according to the documentary, don't know their source) of the soybean crop was being used to feed the livestock! So in essence, they're cutting down the world's most precious rainforest to turn it into meat! wow!
Comment
24 of 37
July 15, 2009
It appears REW depends on commenters for fact-checking, sort of wiki-like. Many of the articles are so generic and abstract, I skip down straight to the comments because I like to get in the nitty-gritty.

If I were the queen of the joint, I would strongly solicit authors wishing to be detailed and practical.

Smart micro-grids are coming because when people with a strong urge for this kind of product want it badly enough to devote endless hours to pressing for it, they are going to make it happen.

In the unusually meeting-going and alert town where I live, people want micro-grids, and they are willing to keep at the powers-that-be until they get them. As yet, they are lobbied for as an option.

Severe stonewalling by the investor-owneds, and it's going to turn into buy-out and mandate. By no stretch of my imagination are we a free-enterprise society now to much of a degree, but the monopolies are running at high-risk by withholding what the people want.

People want the opportunity for feed-in. Investor-owneds can pay a little now and maybe stave off the high-above-gas-generated cost or they can wait until they are mandated to pay much higher RE-payments, -credits, -tariffs, whatever they will get called in the end.

I'm beginning to think it is too much risk in generation companies not owned by ratepayers, local citizens, and workers.

I think this, and I'm about as libertarian as it gets. Self-serving managements have brought us to this place.

Running down the financial and other risks of nuclear power is just inexcusable. The history of boondoggles here in the Northwest will not allow a resurgence of this taxpayer-mugging here. Very smart people and their families will never forget and never allow a repeat.
Comment
25 of 37
July 15, 2009
I meant to say "minimizing" rather than "running down" at the beginning of that last paragraph. My inner editor was contemplating more coffee.
Comment
26 of 37
July 15, 2009
No self-respecting scientist ever claimed that CO2 emissions were responsible for the pattern of global cooling observed during the 1960s and 1970s. The cause of the global cooling phenomenon was the increased concentration of particulate matter (sulphate aerosols) in the atmosphere, which increased the earth's albedo and reduced the amount of sunshine reaching its surface. These aerosol emissions were the result of the combustion of dirty fossil fuels -- same as anthropogenic CO2 emissions! -- but no one with half a brain every claimed that it was the CO2 emissions that were causing the cooling. Please get your facts straight.

Incidentally, actual scientists were never really concerned about global cooling to begin with. It was Newsweek and other media outlets who ran with the cooling story -- with no scientific backing -- while the actual climate scientists at the time were concerned about global warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Comment
27 of 37
July 15, 2009
Also, it was the Cuyahoga River that caught fire, not Lake Erie itself.
Comment
28 of 37
July 15, 2009
Not sure what the regulatory environment is like where you live, but here in CA the CPUC sets rates such that the IOUs recoup their operating costs and earn a fair rate of return on their capital expenditures -- so the installing-an-efficient-cooling-tower example makes no sense. A utility's shareholders *would* earn a return on that investment.

Your general point that utilities should be incentivized to operate more efficiently is a good one. Here in CA we do that by allowing the IOUs to earn rewards (or incur penalties) based on the energy efficiency savings they manage to achieve, relative to state targets. See: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/NEWS_RELEASE/72994.htm

Also, I strongly agree with Russ's comments (#20) re: efficiencies of small versus large generators. An automobile engine is one of the least efficient (and expensive) engines you can possibly find. Not sure why we'd want all 6-7 billion of us to power our homes with them.
Comment
29 of 37
July 16, 2009
I see that the continued discourse makes my point "common sense is the scarcest of commodities". I might add civility to the list, but why bother. The arguing and point and counterpoint solves absolutely nothing. I'm sure that most of you have facts and studies to support your argument. The point of the author was not to claim he was right. His point was we have to move forward past the endless debates and science versus psuedo-science. We have growing energy needs and inadequate or unpleasant alternatives with which to meet them. We need to reach agreement and move forward. The time for endless debate and bickering has long passed us.

PS-In his defense there were numerous "papers" and news articles supporting global cooling and a new ice age during the 70s. Yes, they cited CO2 as saving us from eminent doom at the time. Some papers blamed the sulfur dioxide and other pollutants for blocking solar radiation and accelerating the process. Most claimed it was part of a periodic cycle. They said we were "due" an Ice Age. Several of my professors mades us write term papers about it. I would suppose they were wrong or misguided, but there was a large body of opinion at the time.

To those citing doom and gloom articles for me to read about the population explosion. That is not my point. Yes population growth is a strain on natural resources and the planet to some degree. I do not agree that it is inherently the "end of us all", but it might be. My point is to ask what you would propose to do about it? There aren't many pleasant answers to that question.
Comment
30 of 37
July 16, 2009
Nice points Mary. I would agree with your evaluation of many of the articles. This is by no means a peer reviewed publication by academic standards, but neither is Time or Newsweek. I think that situation in our society is much of the problem and root cause for much of the discourse. How many of the claims in some of the news stories these days turn out to be completely false. We are in an age of rumors for fact and news stories for scientific law. I guess that is why I'm so sceptical on any study that I can't repeat or any claim that doesn't provide enough raw data to prove.
Comment
31 of 37
July 16, 2009
As far as our animal factories not being natural, they are not. They are better for the enviroment as far as methane production goes. Grain fed cattle produce less methane than a roughage(grass) diet. This is proven without a doubt. The bacteria in the rumen needed to break down the roughage diet produces more methane. Otherwise, the cattle in most other parts of the world which are dependent completely on roughage create more ghg's than the North American grain fed cattle. Yes, there is still a lot of methane coming from the piles of manure or the lagoons but not as much as there could be. I don't know about chickens and pigs methane production.
Comment
32 of 37
July 16, 2009
To Ken-Riddle, at what point does human population become more than a strain on the natural resources? I think I just heard that one billion humans were starving or underfed. I've heard arguments that we cannot preserve some piece of real estate in it's natural condition because it would deprive some human of some life sustaining resource. Are we going to destroy all animal life on the planet so we can add more humans to the population? Think of those cattle in a feed lot, at some point adding one more cow means the death of all. I read once that at the current rate of population growth, in 2000 years the mass of humans would be expanding at the speed of light. That is not some fanciful scientific speculation but simple compound interest calculations. Long before that ever happens life will be impossible for most humans. There are non draconian methods to stop and reverse over population. Education has been the greatest contraceptive. Money is another incentive, pay people not procreate, or charge them for the burden their children place on the rest of us. This is a life and death fight and the severity of the methods need to be increased until the results equal the number of humans that can be sustained in comfort for the long centuries ahead.
Comment
33 of 37
July 17, 2009
what i only get 2k characters for my diatribe?

Too many of his "truths" are just that; not facts. Thats a writers newsspeak way of making something look factual when its not.

I am showing that according to 2007 greenhouse gas data

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/InventoryUSGhG1990-2007.pdf

that emissions from fossil fuel burning was at 5736 million tons of CO2 in 2007. While methane (which is about 21x more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) from animals was 139 million tons plus 44 million for manure management. this is the equivalent of 139+44 x 21 = 3843 million tons of CO2. so farm animals are about 2/3rds the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel burning. Not more. your truths are not facts.

Also lets dispell this myth right now: You CANNOT call nuclear power "clean" power.

3 cubic meters, or 25-30 tons of high level waste come from each large reactor every year.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm

considering there are 104 active reactors in the US alone that is 104 x 25 = 2600 tons of high level waste per year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

In addition at the NRC site, the amount of low level waste that has to be contained per year is 1.42 million cubic feet in the US (last recorded in 1998?).

So would you call 312 cubic meters plus 1.42 million cubic feet of waste a "clean" technology? i sure as hell wouldnt.

solution? solar panel manufacture pollutes alot less than burning coal.

55 grams of CO2 per KW/h
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power

We get solar production plants back by hydrogen splitting water. zero emission. baseline power backing solar.


To conclude: we dont need coal, we dont need nuclear. What we need is old timer thinking to go away. Get out of that box your in, the one filled with 3 cubic meters of nuclear waste.
No image available
Comment
34 of 37
Anonymous
July 21, 2009
Nuclear, "clean". I see your tendences (sorry, but not to protect the environment).
Comment
35 of 37
July 29, 2009
Thank you Stephen for having the intestinal fortitude to actually propose some solutions to the population issue. I have no problem with the population debate. It is an urgent issue. I don't agree that paying somebody not to procreate is not a dire choice, but it might be the best choice. You are quite correct the money and education equate to a lower birthrate. Anyone ever see the movie "Idiocrasy"? In the movie over generations educated people were eliminated from the population since they didn't have as many children. I often fear it might be more accurate than we want to believe.
Comment
36 of 37
July 29, 2009
My dear Brian, you are a dramatic child, if mistaken. Just 'goes to show ya' it is not difficult to encite opinions. The REW people were sleeping to let this on board, or can anyone get on, and make this news blog one more I'll delete. "I choose and am responsible for the world I see." That is a law I can live with.
Comment
37 of 37
February 5, 2010
Brian, ouch! First two diametrically opposed concepts right off the bat "Political" and "Common Sense". Should have been your first hint. Most of the comments after your article had my head nodding up and down so much my neck hurts. However, did you get what everyone is trying to tell you and I? But don't let this scare you off, we need all the help we can get. Just pay attention to which way the wind blows, and keep your head down until the large debris rolls by! <;-P
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Intersolar PLANSEE SE The Stella Group, Ltd. Total Energy USA Rotork plc Solar FlexRack Texas Solar Energy Society
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters