During the past few days I have made several posts containing technical material concerning one of my "pet" projects aimed at energy/environment conservation.
Today, I plan to express some of my opinion/feelings regarding the future of the nation's dependence on fossil fuel and how it seems that we are in such a no-win situation with regard to our reluctance to forgo the very thing that will eventually alter our ability to have any future options in this regard.
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy in a speech to the UN on another subject: "either we put an end to nuclear weapons, or they will put an end to us." As some will recall, at the time, there was a very real chance that this statement would be proven correct. Fortunately, the world got through this era without the worst happening. Now, over 50 years later, we stand at another even more perilous crossroad.
Ironically, back then, nuclear power seemingly threatened our existence, today if allowed to flourish, nuclear power may well be our only salvation. Indeed, the people of this country seem almost unable to overcome their fear of what COULD happen, to open their eyes to what WILL happen. As everyone knows by now, the forces that shaped our world into a place capable of supporting life as we know it, also locked away millions (if not billions) of years worth of a typically benign element, we call carbon.
It has been only about 200 years since mankind discovered the "wonders" of removing this carbon in the form of coal or liquid oil in large quantities. But in that "cosmic nanosecond" of time, man has already reached that point where half of the carbon sequestered by nature is now in our environment. No one could have known the consequence of being so greedy. But,nevertheless, now those consequences are becoming real.
So, as a people what are we going to do? Do we continue on this course without abatement? Or, do we alter that course just in the nick of time to avoid world wide displacement, death and destruction. Either way, I assure you, the earth will continue on. The earth is not in any real danger. It has seen it all before. In its' brief (6 billion) year history, the earth has stood witness to many many similar upheavals--and as we can see, it has endured.
There are those out there right now who preach that what we are seeing is merely the end or beginning of a cyclical temperature change. Nothing to be alarmed about--because it has happened before. And, taken in that context, they are right. I guess the only thing we differ upon is what happens to mankind, and the world we have all grown to love? Unlike the earth, mankind has not be around long enough to see the end or beginning of any geological cycle. So--it begs the question: do we really want to find out the hard way, what happens while the earth sorts out these issues over a period longer than man can ever imagine?
I think we know about one group among us that really accepts the end of civilization as we know it. But then there are those of use who haven't read that chapter. Perhaps, we would like to go on living as before. Then, of course there are those who want to go living as before, but don't want to give up anything to achieve that goal. These are the folks who get in their cars every day and drive to the local gas station and expect the gas to be there for them. They are not worried about tomorrow--because today "is hard enough." Hard or not, as long as they can afford gasoline and home heating oil, they choose not to worry---too much.
In the past few years, that is up until about October of 2008, we watched people flock to the showrooms to buy SUVs. Ironically, they say they wanted these vehicle because they someone said to be safer than conventional sedans. And, as it turns out, when pitted against one of these SUVs the "poor fools" who continued to drive their sedans died at a higher rate than those "smart folks" who proudly drove, to prove what they could purchase. However, when pitted against just the road, people also died in SUVs because of their less than excellent stability at any speed. It also does not help that some people just drive SUV more aggressively because they are "SAFER"-- you see.
I sometimes wonder exactly what odds SUV owners give themselves for being a victim of an automobile accident if they continued to drive smaller more fuel efficient automobiles. The fact of the matter is that while they are more massive-- and there is some safely in size--- SUV were popular to the BIG-3 because they were cheaper to produce. Why were they cheaper? Because they did not require compliance with the same safety standards as the sedans and compact cars.
Nevertheless, the BIG-3 made it almost a requirement of life to own one of these monsters.
Now, as we all know, that changed last fall when gasoline prices topped $4.00 per gallon. All of a sudden, the new car lots where awash with unsold SUVs. As a result, GM and one competitor are now coming out of bankruptcy as a result of both their miscalculation, and the government's charity.
I remember watching a show last summer about the "FUTURE of automobiles," on PBS. The "car talk" brothers were at the Detroit auto show interviewing a certain person from GM. When asked why GM insisted on making 500 hp automobiles--- in this day and age, the women laughed and said "well---this is what the people want?". To which, one of them said under his breath--but want about what they will want tomorrow? And, can you respond that fast?
During the winter and spring of 2009, gasoline prices dropped back to below $2 per gallon. And I detected some return to old ways of thinking--but not obliviously not enough to save the BIG-2. Now, with gasoline prices at almost $3 per gallon, Ford has recorded better sales numbers than Toyota for the first time in a while. This is based on the apparent fact that Ford has a few fuel efficiency models and people want to buy American. I must say, that I am not myself ready to leave Honda behind, but if I ever decide to buy American, it would be a Ford.
So, now that the smile has finally been erased from the faces of those smug populous BIG-3 executives where do we go from here?Certainly that question is far to complicated for most people like me to answer. Because sometimes the most obvious answer usually is way to simplistic. But I guess if i had to guess. I would have to say that the efficient non-carbon dependent production of electricity is at least part of the solution. Notice, I said non-carbon dependent. That means that electricity produced by coal, and oil should be out of the equation. That leaves us with Hydro, Solar, Wind, and Nuclear as our only viable long term energy sources. Oh, I almost forgot, one huge source of new energy, is in fact simply to stop wasting the energy we are already producing. This is why I think it is important to make even modest improvements in the efficiency of the automobiles we already have on the road. i.e. my efforts to make it possible to know precisely how much fuel a car is using in real-time.
Of the four, Solar and Wind are now being addressed. But like hydro, they are at best only capable of filling a small percentage of our needs. Also, many smart people point out that solar is good only when the sun shines. That leaves the only 80 plus percent on-line source as nuclear. Naturally, just like everything else, nuclear power has its own unique set of problems. Moreover, unlike the long term problems caused by the others, its drawbacks can lead to major immediate consequences if not handed correctly. The other major problem with nuclear power is in the long term disposal of the spent fuel. These important issues notwithstanding, I for one believe that nuclear power, is our only real option. Coupled with the other three non-carbon sources of power, it will provide enough power to see this country through this period of transition. It will power our homes, our factories, and, indirectly, our automobiles.
Speaking again of automobiles: The trend in automobiles these days is toward plug-in hybrids. Hopefully, within a few years, battery technology will obviate the need for the gasoline assist engine and they will become all electric. That is good except: where is that electricity going to come from? Certainly, we can not pay the cost of this transition, plus continue to burn coal to power these electric cars. I believe we must therefore push wind and solar to the hilt. But, we must also license and build many more "inherently safe canned design" nuclear power plants. We must also solve the long term waste problem. Perhaps, one way would be to find some way to use the residual heat from this waste to power applications requiring lower grade heat.
Unfortunately, the era of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) may need to be pushed aside to keep the wishes of a few from detailing the dreams of the many.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment