The Market Oracle/ Aug 06, 2007 - 09:13 AM
By: Brian_Bloom
Preface - The benchmark against which I have been measuring the appropriateness of various alternative energies has been: “Does this particular technology offer the potential to represent a sensible replacement for oil across the planet within a decade? Alternatively: Can it replace coal within 25 years?”
I am sensitive to the possibility that some readers may have been
irritated by my apparently cavalier predisposition to dismiss various
alternative energies which they may be favouring. In this context, let
me clarify my position: I dismiss nothing out of hand. There is no
insurmountable shortcoming of, for example, solar power or wind power.
We should continue to embrace both. However, neither of these can (yet)
generate sufficient energy to replace that generated by burning
approximately 240 million equivalent barrels of oil a day; and neither
will be capable of achieving this objective within either of the two
deadlines. The issue is “time” as this article will demonstrate. We
do not have the luxury of time. We also do not have the luxury of
making any serious strategic mistakes.
In my view, embracing Nuclear Fission would be a serious strategic
mistake. Although it is capable of doing the job of coal, I have some
philosophical problems with that technology partially because it will
entrench the have/have-not divide. For example, are we all going
to be comfortable for Iran or Zimbabwe or North Korea or Syria or
Venezuela or Haiti to install Nuclear Fission Power? Why should the
citizens of those countries be denied access to a new energy paradigm?
We need to be thinking of what's in the best interests of all of humanity, not just ourselves. Nuclear Fission fails that test whilst there are other technologies that do (appear to) pass all
tests. Looking forward, an ”I'm all right Jack” attitude is no longer
appropriate. We're all of us in the same boat, and the name of that
boat is “Earth”. There will be no survivors if the boat capsizes.
Further, Nuclear Fission as a generic source of power also fails
another important strategic test which will be highlighted below and
addressed in detail in the last article in this series. Of course, we
should not reject it outright; but it is not a panacea and it also
comes with its own heavy baggage.
Introduction
The purpose of this series of articles is to validate a strategic
plan which will allow us to migrate away from oil within 10 years, from
coal in 25 years and, at the same time, position the World Economy for
a phase of growth which will facilitate:
...
Full article: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1741.html
