If we were serious about global warming... Part 4

June 24, 10:06 AMSF Environmental Policy ExaminerThomas Fuller

Previous Next

13 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

If we were serious about global warming, then we would evaluate alternative means of generating, distributing and storing energy by specific criteria and invest proportionately in them. Instead, we have somehow jumped into wind power head over heels, despite serious problems with generating capacity, distribution and storage. How is this possible?

Wind power has some exciting potential. However, it only produces about 25% of the power rating it says on the label, due to fluctuations of, well, the wind. This means that normal power plants have to be fired up, running and ready to replace the power that wind just cannot deliver. How is it that we have spent so much money on this?

Similarly with solar power--it produces a lot of power when the sun is shining, but nightfall tends to be a fairly regular occurrence, and we also have cloudy days.

It doesn't really seem as though somebody looked at all alternative sources together. Had they done so, they might have considered retrofitting dams to eke out more power from hydro. They might have looked more closely at OTEC (sea-based plants that produce energy from the temperature differential between the surface and the deep blue sea), or even Space Based Power Satellites, which can collect solar power 24/7 and deliver it via microwave. And ignoring nuclear power, which the Obama administration seems intent on doing (at least in public discussion), seems a bit short-sighted.

Now, somebody may have actually studied the mix of alternative energy sources and come to a conclusion and developed a strategy. But if so, could someone point to the document that informs public discussion? If we have an investment plan for research and development, can someone show me where all of these are compared to each other and recommendations that have been made for splitting our research dollars between them?

In these 4 articles (see part 1, part 2 and part 3), I have tried to show that our response to global warming does not measure up to what people are telling us is the gravity of the situation. There are basically two possible conclusions to this--either they don't believe their own reports on the danger of global warming or the political agenda is being driven by companies and politicians with a specific solution that benefits themselves, but not necessarily the rest of us--or the climate.

It seems pretty slapstick so far.