Bill argues against my claim that:
>I'm all for investigating new energy sources, but they're not
available right now.
Saying:
“Sure they are, they just aren't profitable.”
But businesses making solar cells do make profits. Electricity
generators and car manufacturers aren’t doing so well. When you say
they aren’t profitable, I presume therefore that you mean that it’s not
profitable to switch energy source immediately. This is true, but it’s not a simple question of profit. It is not possible to meet current needs from alternative technologies, and there would be a massive waste in trashing legacy power plants and those 235.3 million cars in the US.
(see http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/solar.pdf on the solar market - how can you avoid a report that begins, “While the US Solar Collector market was ho-hum in 2003, the photovoltaic cell and module business was anything but dull”!)
It’s easy to talk high-mindedly about cars, but more CO2 is produced in electricity (1868.4 tg equivalent 2002 coal, 299.1 gas, 44.4 petroleum) generation than from cars – in 2002 (1,729.2 petroleum, 35.2 gas). That’s why I emphasised electrical goods, like PCs and air conditioning. These are essential goods for our society. I’m not putting words into anyone’s mouth by saying that you need to explain either how we will continue to power these goods in an environmentally acceptable way, or you will have to explain how we can get by without them.
John says, “I don't expect to change your mind and you are very unlikely to change mine”. Engaging with you has helped me to think through some of these issues, regardless of changing minds. My challenge to you isn’t to make me change my mind, but to provide something more substantial than the usual resource shortage/global warming mantra. Then at least there would be something substantial to debate.
James Greenstein