But that's no problem, theoretically. From a Physics perspective, there is vastly more energy in sunlight than we could ever possibly use. Almost all the energy sources we use come in large part from sunlight - keep in mind some large proportion of the energy of the wind comes from sunlight and all the energy in hydro-power comes from sunlight. From a biological perspective, the kind of green energy you're talking about is possible, but it would essentially require humans to create a kind meta-biosphere.
There are many sort of circular groups of chemical reactions that the biosphere "recharges" through sunlight on a scale of centuries and eons. Because our energy needs as a species are so high, we need these to happen a lot faster. We could do that, but it will take a tremendous effort in information and industrial technology.
In the mean time, there is a lot of "free" energy we can harvest. Some of it - like hydro, wind and solar requires "robbing" the very inefficient solar-biosphere system of a little bit of energy that it will never miss - although there are environmental consequences. Other ways include "robbing" the earth of energy created or concentrated during its formation - geo-thermal and nuclear. Again, the Earth will never miss it, but it does mean have some environmental implications. And then there is burning fossil fuels which - on a geological scale - is simply consuming the "carrion" buried deep in the earth so that plants can fix that carbon again and start the cycle over.
Of all these, nuclear energy is clearly the one that has to be exploited the most quickly.
Through excess consumption, humans have overloaded their environment with gaseous carbon waste. The Climate Change curve is very much like the curve you see of concentrations of waste products produced by microbes in the medium of an incubator - like yeast making ethanol. This is usually called the "S-Curve" because it's very much a population curve, the top of the "S" being where population tops out because the waste (say, ethanol) starts to kill the producers of it.
Obviously we don't want to get to the top of that curve, so we need to deploy a technology which will allow us to stop producing that waste most quickly. Here in Washington state, we could easily generate all our power virtually carbon-free by building a relatively few nuclear power plants because we have so much hydro energy already on line. We also have the advantage of having a lot of offshore islands separated from the mainland by deep fjords. But with enough investment in the power grid (which is required with any non-fossil technology) nuclear power could replace a huge amount of carbon-producing power generation withing a short time.
Other technologies might work, but I would question the speed at which they can be deployed relative to the speed at which the Chinese and Indians will - for good reason - be building coal-fired power plants. As I see it, we must offset or replace those new carbon-producing megawatts with non-carbon-producing megawatts at between 150% and 200% the pace they are being built.
Right now, nuclear is the only way to do that and I think it would be prudent to get started quickly. The need is clear, it seems to me: create non-carbon-producing megawatts twice as fast as the developing world will otherwise create carbon-producing megawatts. However that's done, fine. Until other technologies can be deployed faster and cheaper, you have to start with nuclear being the bulk of your fossil-alternative "portfolio". Hopefully that situation won't obain for very long, because nuclear does have its problems, but I think it's more important to get started now and develop as we go than wait for a better technology answer.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM, martin <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
>>
>> Re: 'greater power'...
>>
>>
>> There are plenty of belief systems which "describe the role of human
>> life as a part of a balanced cosmic system". Trouble is, competing
>> schools of adherents never agree on the particulars and eventually get
>> to smashing each other on the head with chairs, hammers, surface to
>> surface missiles and microwave disrupters. Deadly! And dull.
>>
>
> That's why I used "logical" as a qualifier. [...defining 'a greater power'
> that is logical and naturally 'green' .]
>
> And logic is why I expressed my interest here, in a forum where logic and
> rhetoric are primary considerations.
>
> It seems that everyone here recognizes in some sense that there are a wide
> range of humans who need a mechanism to bind them together and help them
> understand their existence. A belief system. How could it hurt as an
> intellectual exercise to describe a logical extension of our known universe
> into a 'greater power'.
>
> Like you say - there are plenty of belief systems out there. That they serve
> some purpose is self-evident. But they also are subject to the 'chairs and
> hammers'. What would a 'greater power' have to look like to be at least
> acceptable to Dwayne ?
>
> The only thing that I can work out lies in a metaphor of 'greater power' as
> the logical extension of the sequential progressions of energy bundles bound
> together in orbiting shells. And I can see how a story of 'nine circles'
> might attempt to encompass this metaphor.
>
>> Better, I think, to focus our 'green' musings on de-carbonization's
>> social and technical requirements and leave the cosmic re-alignment
>> quest for weekends lubricated with Belgian ale.
>
>
> What I remember of ale is ballantine 3ring in a green longneck. I thought
> that it tasted a little like over mature carrots. Fortunately, my memory of
> lubrication is fresh enough to keep me safe. Tell me more about belgian ale
> - is it imported or locally produced by craft brewers in your area ?
>
> martin
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>