Currently, however, these alternatives are too expensive for consumers to switch energy resources. In the future, it can be predicted that the opposite will be true; alternative, renewable energy supplies will be less expensive than fossil fuels. This still poses the problem that, as demand for oil and fossil fuels drops, these industries will be able to drop their prices to compensate. A transition to a state where renewable energy will meet all our needs will inevitably involve a painful withdrawal from the world's addiction to oil. Have no doubt that the oil industry will put up one heck of a fight against this transition.
I worry that renewable energy will not be able to meet our economic needs until the oil industry fails to do so itself. While oil is nonrenewable, the world will not be stop its oil addiction, and economically depend on renewable energy, any time soon.
Statistics: Posted by cmal — Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:39 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20035
The fact that probably the world's greatest climatologist says we should go to mainly Gen IV nuclear from coal ASAP, says a lot on that technology. It would be good for places with lousy other sources and clean up the nuclear waste problem, too.
Statistics: Posted by Johhny Electriglide — Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:57 pm
]]>
The other angle is to eliminate utilities all together and have every house independent from "the grid". People and businesses have been doing this for years but only lately have utilities prices been high enough to make the switch to independence have a reasonable payback time over grid-tie and just better efficiency. People must also seek better efficiency first as it can make the required solar input and energy storage many times smaller and thus many times cheaper then what they typically use.
Statistics: Posted by Ann Vole — Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:29 pm
]]>
It is a fact that many climate scientists have been "Erring on the Side of Least Drama":
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html
From the article:
"Permafrost Melt and Carbon Feedback
The Copenhagen Diagnosis notes that the global warming amplification (feedback) from carbon released as a result of permafrost melting has not been accounted for in any of the IPCC projections. A recent UN Environment Programme report warned that failing to account for this feedback will result in an underestimate of future warming."
They do not want to acknowledge what three groups of tundra scientists said in 2009, that we were at the point of a positive feedback look of tundra methane self release, and what that portends, and what must be done to stop it.
Then this, too;
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ ... php#page-1
Statistics: Posted by Johhny Electriglide — Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:36 pm
]]>
This report by the IPCC is an excellent resource for anyone interested in renewable technology.
The report suggests that by 2050 we can supply 80% of our energy needs from renewables. Personally I believe that it is well within our abilities to achieve a very low carbon economy, but due to the simple fact, that the know fossil fuel reserves are about five times greater than we can burn, without exceeding a global temperature increase of 2 Deg C., we have an enormous pressure from the fossil fuel companies to exploit those reserves. I don't see any fossil fuel company being willing to put their hand up, and say we will leave 80% of our reserves in the ground.
This also suggests that the favoured solution of economists of putting a price on carbon ultimately won't work, while a price on carbon will definitely make a difference at first over time the fossil fuel companies will sell the fuel for whatever they can get for it.
Statistics: Posted by warmair — Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:34 pm
]]>