Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I ask - does anyone else see a problem with this approach?
I do, for the same reasons you have expressed. I do not trust any government that has continually, for the past half-century, specialized in promoting
a class-based society and concerned itself with promoting solutions to problems it has been instrumental in creating, solutions that place average,
everyday Americans in tough economic situations individually.
That said, we do indeed need to do a better job of taking care of our planet. Pollution needs to be brought under control and reversed. Somewhere
inside, I am hoping that Obama can help with this. Perhaps it is naivety, perhaps it is intense desire masquerading falsely as hope, but I pray it is
not.
Carbon credits will do nothing but exacerbate the problems we are now feeling.
There is no natural fuel available to us today that does not emit
CO2 when oxidized. That includes coal, oil, natural gas, wood, alcohol, or agricultural waste. The only way to extract energy from these fuels
without producing CO2 is to use a different medium for reduction than oxygen, and this more often than not results in seriously polluting (usually
very nasty) by-products. Only hydrogen can be burned in oxygen vigorously enough to supply chemical energy without producing CO2, and as of today
hydrogen is not an energy
source. Hydrogen at present must be produced from hydrogen-containing compounds, which in itself requires energy.
We have exhausted the best method technologically available at present for electrical production, that being hydroelectric power. I believe we are
approaching the limits on wind power. Solar is not a viable solution for a myriad of technical and practical reasons, and barring unforeseen and
drastic improvements, I doubt it ever will be any more than a niche supply used for extremely low-power apps. Of all the technologies I have seen, the
two most promising to remove carbonaceous compounds form the electrical production scene are nuclear (yes, I am familiar with the waste fuel problem)
and wave technology. But even wave technology is a few years away. The design problems are being worked out now, some requiring material technology
advances, and there are still the financing and construction stages to come. These take time. A
LOT of time.
In short, we
cannot at this time stop the use of hydrocarbon fuels without major changes to our lifestyles. I am not talking about using
efficient light bulbs. Do you like your computer? Your TV? Do you like being able to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer? Do you like being
able to keep food cold in a refrigerator or freezer for later use? Do you like being able to cook that food whenever you are hungry? Do you like
having lights to see when the sun goes down? Are you glad to be able to go to the store in less than a day of walking or riding an animal, and to do
so sheltered from rain, heat, or cold weather?
Don't misunderstand me; we can have all these things in abundance and still keep our planet human-friendly. But in order to do so, we cannot simply
stop using hydrocarbon fuels and expect a better fuel to be developed. It's not really a matter of forcing someone to do a better job with energy.
That tactic (Which we call around here a 'Mexican Standoff') works very well when the problem encountered is one of a person's willingness (or lack
thereof) to do a thing. In the case of renewable energy, the problem is one of insufficiently advanced technology. Physics is notorious for being
intolerant to demands by politicians.
I have outlined in previous posts ways that we can drop the CO2 level without endangering the economy, and I have no intention of doing so again here.
But carbon credits will serve the opposite purpose. They will artificially raise the costs of energy on those who can least afford it: the average
citizen (many of whom are out of work right now). They will also prevent smaller competitive companies from competing, by raising a financial bar that
all companies must hurdle in order to exist. Established companies who already have a steady income will have little trouble passing the cost on to
established customers. Start-up ventures, which have no customers as of yet, will not be able to do so. So if carbon credits are instituted, be aware
that it will be the death knell for any new technology that may be sitting in someone's basement waiting to be used.
Now, surely someone will bring up the theory that we already have the new technology, but that it is hidden away in some oil company's vault, safe
from actual implementation that could threaten their stranglehold on the consumer. I believe that as well. But exactly how will carbon credits cause
this situation to change? How will they force anyone to come out with that new technology? The simple answer is, they won't accomplish this, and will
even make it so difficult for smaller entities to implement competitive new technologies that it will no longer be necessary for the large companies
to spend millions to buy up new ideas from the little guy. The little guy will simply be unable to implement them
by law.
I should also point out that these newer technologies do indeed exist. I completed a proof-of-concept prototype last month and tested it. I can now
state that I have the capability to produce hydrogen without the high costs and energy usage presently associated with it. I will not discuss
specifics here; I mention this only to illustrate that the concept of the small-time inventor has not disappeared form the technology scene. If you
chose to not believe me, feel free.
Whether or not these carbon credits are implemented will, according to the people handling my financing attempts, have a major bearing on any chance
that this will become a public method of energy production. And to be honest, I didn't develop it for public use anyway. You see, I know how to
survive, and while a Depression will no doubt be a tough time for me and mine, we will survive. And we will survive with unlimited cheap power. It
would be nice if my lights were not the only ones on, but a lifetime of dealing with humans who are either unable to comprehend simple economics or
unwilling to accept factual evidence has made me somewhat cynical. I'm thinking of me and mine first.
Should things play out the way I expect, a lot of people will wake up to that realization the good Prof mentioned earlier, with no lights, no
communication, and no transportation. It sounds like a horrible situation, but perhaps there is a silver lining behind that dark cloud: some people
will not see what's in front of their nose until it hits them in their nose.
Tough love, anyone?
TheRedneck
[edit on 25-1-2009 by TheRedneck]