Global warming Part 2.

Just to summarise the points I tried to make in my previous post.

1. Very few of us are qualified to make an informed opinion on global warming. Most of us have to rely on what others, whom we consider to be informed, tell us. In the absence of informed opinion most of us rely on our prejudice to form an opinion. Many of those upon whom we are relying for informed opinion are themselves speaking from prejudice and concealed vested interests.

2. It is one thing to condemn present methods of fossil fuel electricity generation. It is quite another to come up with a viable alternative.

3. Renewable energy sources are presently not capable of delivering 24/7/365 continuous supply. The best that can be expected is to utilise them to supplement coal/gas/nuclear generators.

4. While most public discourse is on methods of reduction of domestic energy use, no public discussion is being held on methods of reducing industrial/commercial energy use which accounts for over 70% of energy use.

5. Present politically motivated government subsidies for domestic alternative energy use are not as cost effective as building alternative energy sources to supply a base load grid which supplies both domestic and commercial/industrial customers.

I want to briefly discuss coal/gas/nuclear powered generators. While gas is a cleaner fuel than coal, it is also a finite fossil fuel which can be used more efficiently as a direct energy source than for generating electricity.

The great white hope of governments is for the use of "clean coal". This technology is by no means certain to be effective, and will result in increased cost of energy.

The use of nuclear power will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but at the cost of creating  nuclear waste which has its own environmental nasties. Nuclear also has other disadvantages such as cost and security issues.

Everyone has their own aversion to the use of one or more of the above, but governments must make decisions based on the best information they have that will result in a clean and viable source of energy. They must balance environmental consequences against the economic consequences of their choice. They will be subject to the urging of lobbyists, and the political consequences of their actions. It is not a simple choice, and they will be damned whatever they decide. Issues such as international competitiveness must loom largely in their thinking as they ponder the rogue states who have no concern for the consequences of global warming. Conversely, it is very easy for clean energy advocates to play fast and loose with someone else's job.

We cannot ignore the fact that there is a price to be paid by someone/everyone whatever energy decisions governments make. That is why I think we all have a responsibility to leave our prejudices aside, and try to inform ourselves as best we can as to all available options. Then to become active in trying to influence governments to our way of thinking.  I have no illusions as to the difficulties of doing so. That is no reason not to try.

For what its worth, I think the world will be forced to go nuclear at some time in the future. And no, it isn't a pleasant thought. But then, neither is a world without energy. Maybe the solar advocates will prove me wrong. I hope they do.