Between the past two issues of Popular Science and this month's issue of National Geographic, the issue of how to power the future (and maintain the environment in the process) has been summarized pretty well for anyone interested. In particular, Popular Science's article on how to scrub CO2 from the environment was pretty interesting- since it addresses reality (i.e., we are going to continue burning fossil fuels- how do we do so with less impact on the environment).
The article in this month's National Geographic is a sound look at our alternatives. To sum...
Solar- Still really expensive, but if a cheaper way were to be conceived it could become the mainstream alternative to fossil fuels (i.e., the same message I was hearing 20 years ago in high school).
Wind- Europe is already generating 20% of its power from the wind. Of course, no one wants a mill in their back yard (or even off the coast if it messes up the view).
Nuclear- China is turning on to nuclear power, while the US has been pretty much stagnant since 1979 (TMI). Uranium is not an unlimited resource, but new ways of utilizing other elements are under development.
Hydrogen- Unless nuclear power is used, hydrogen basically creates more pollution than fossil fuels (because the energy expenditure used to isolate the hydrogen is greater than the energy it produces, using fossil fuels to create hydrogen causes more pollution than if we just burned the fossil fuels straightaway).
Anyway, what are your opinions? Personally, I think fossil fuels are here for a long time (unless there is a breakthrough in alternative power). Wind power sounds good to me, and I don't mind looking at the windmills. I grew up 5 miles from TMI- including the event in 1979- and I still think nuclear is an extremely viable option. Solar seems to be a non-starter... its always "just around the corner."
Mainly, I would just like to see some "reality checks." Such as:
Reality Check #1.) Fossil fuels are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere- the long term impact is probably harder to predict than we are led to believe by the environmentalists, and probably more significant than we are led to believe by the other side.
Reality Check #2.) We should be working to make fossil fuels as clean as possible, because- like it or not- we are and will continue to consume a LOT of fossil fuels.
Reality Check #3.) From a nationalistic standpoint, we should also be tapping into our own supplies (i.e., sink some wells around the Artic Circle and give up all the grandstanding about caribou).
Reality Check #4.) We can't rely on fossil fuels forever- we'll run out of air before we run out of fuel.
Reality Check #5.) Hydrogen doesn't make sense without nuclear power. The fact is, in America your hydrogen car is causing more overall pollution than my Ford Expedition- get over it and accept that the evil atom packs a lot of power without the CO2. As for you folks in Utah, if you can find a better place to bury the waste, let us know...
Reality Check #6.) People use energy- and developing countries will use a lot more of it in the future. We need to develop alternatives, but every alternative has its drawbacks- get over it! If you don't like the idea of smog, you may have to put up with a nuclear reactor or a wind mill in your neighborhood. There has to be compromise, however. California is constantly requiring more power- but no one there seems willing to build a power plant of ANY kind.
Well, that's obviously my opinion- what about yours? Lunch break is over now, so its back to work!
Bookmarks