I really don’t want to type up my thoughts again, so I have copy and pasted my thoughts from an email I sent to a friend. He was arguing the “consensus” referring to scientists believing in Global warming. Here are my thoughts and keep in mind this was thrown together in a very short time so forgive my grammar mistakes, etc.
There are a few generalizations that you made that I would be careful about. The first is that the use of “those people” referring to people with hard degrees and assuming that there is a “concensus”(As the Global Warming group likes to use) among them. Are you going to find a person that says that pollutants aren’t bad for the environment, probably not, but are you going to find people who say that the current technology regarding Ethanol, Li-ion battery powered vehicles, hybrids are more detrimental to the environment in the long run, absolutely. I by all means am for the most efficient means of energy and goods production. I use efficient not only to encompass time, energy expelled, waste produced, but also to include the environmental defects caused. Look at the well depreciation caused by the increased manufacturing of Ethanol, 4-5 gals of water per gal of Ethanol, plus it takes more energy to extract ethanol from corn and after spending all of this energy on producing it, it still only contains around 70-80% the amount of energy as a gal of gasoline. To me, that is irresponsible. We are trying to produce cars that get 70 miles to the gallon, two ways to do it, different power plant, i.e. hybrids, or making the vehicle lighter and more aerodynamic. Hybrids = batteries = increased cost energy to build = more waste when batteries need to be replaced, not to mention expensive. The lighter the car can mean two things, better material = more costly = more production cost/energy to produce, or less material = less safe. And this is the tip of the ice berg, what people fail to realize is that a gallon of gas only contains so much energy, so there is a limit on how far it can propel you regardless of what you do. The environmental community is trying to create energy, while they are at it, why don’t they solve perpetual motion too!! You cannot create energy!!! Basic laws of physics, so that means we need to be more efficient in what we do and look at the whole picture, not just the end use/user. Even solar power is terribly inefficient. So, you ask what would I like to see? You heard it here first.
1. Wind power where possible- The shortcomings are that we do not have an efficient way to store electricity(see battery argument above) so they are “on-demand” systems which means on a windy day, there will be some that will still not be operation = inefficiency. My idea, use wind energy that is not being fed back into the grid to electrolyze sea water producing hydrogen, we can store that more efficiently until use!
2. With that hydrogen, instead of trying to figure out the end-all problem and create a fuel cell vehicle(uses hydrogen to create electricity) which I believe is years, if not decades, away from refining to practical uses, why not use a interim solution? That solution, “burn” hydrogen. It is a very exothermic reaction with Hydrogen oxidizes to create H2O(that [censored] child of green house gasses so maybe this is a bad idea) this energy would be used to propel a typical combustion engine with minor modifications. We already have the technology, so why try to recreate the wheel. I believe Mazda and Mercedes are already looking into this.
3. Diesel technology- This black smoke producing, stinky, loud, good ol’ boy technology is actually much more efficient than a regular spark ignited engine. The argument of course is how much more “smoke” it gives off. Well, again, back to the inability to create/destroy energy, diesel is a lesser refined fuel than gas, so, if gas burns cleaner, that simply means that the crud is taken out during the refining cycle, so you still have waste!! Diesels have a black eye from the Environmentalist crowd for very unjust reason, again, they only look at the end user, not everything it took to get there!
4. Hydro power, terribly expensive infrastructure and if placed improperly can be detrimental to the environment, but when used in correct locations is relatively efficient! Again, use excess to create hydrogen!! Both this and the wind generation depend on the ability to safely transport the hydrogen so I do recognize that hurdle.
5.Nuclear – This has always boggled my mind on why we do not embrace it more. All you see is pictures or toxic waste, yada yada yada. But lets be serious, when it comes to efficiency, there is no comparison. They have found ways to use the “left over” bars for further use. If you look at the amount of energy given off per lb. of waste, I believe it makes it worth its while.
6. And the most important, let the people who do the research and create this technology reap the benefits! If a company does not want to abide and research, then so be it. Don’t force them to do the research, if they want to miss the boat, that is their burden. They will be continuing to purchase coal, oil, whatever it is they need to constantly purchase to create energy, meanwhile the wind generators will be getting energy for “free” after the overhead is paid off.
However it isnt going to do a whole lot of good if the other countrys arent doing the same.The population on the planet is growing at a fast rate and we are already seeing effects of that on our water supply and other things.The planet is pretty big but it will only accomidate so many.Then just like animals nature will step in and thin things out and that wont be pretty.
