No free lunches, agreed, every decision made has a consequence which eventually comes down to a cost. We just have to balance the costs and benefits and make the best decision we can. Improving efficiency is obviously a positive move. Ultimately using wind, wave and solar power will be the way, though the current costs don't make the argument compelling. Nuclear power is a valid power source for electricity for the medium term, but the lack of investment in that industry for the last 30 or 40 years has put its development way behind. There isn't one answer, it isn't just nuclear, solar, wind or water, but a broad spectrum of options which will all contribute in different areas and over dfferent time frames. By the way, fossil fuel is still a valid part of that equation and will be until we can fly planes using solar power.
I believe I have put this elsewhere when a similar thread was developing. While I don't know how much oil there is left in the ground, take a look at Professor Al Bartlett's lecture on Exponential Growth and then see if you still think we have 400 years of oil left. While just about every argument comes from the viewpoint of the person making it, this does seem to make logical sense. Take a look, I'd be interested in your views.Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Here's the home page of the Professor.
http://www.albartlett.org/index.html
And here is the front page of his lecture which is split into 8 x 10 minute segments for easy viewing.
http://www.albartlett.org/presentati...gy_video1.html
Reply With Quote
