Hi Dennis et al, At 12:01 16/07/01 -0700, Dennis Paull wrote: Cut to ---> (KH) >Now then, let me shift to a possibly hopeful sign. The cost of solar power >>cells is decreasing from year to year. However, one of the big problems >>with solar-powered electricity generation is the cost of transmission from >>the hot places of the world to the places that use electricity. Very >>recently, and for the first time, super-conducting cables are being tested. >>Even if this particular test is not successful it is a reasonable bet that >>suitable super-conducting materials will be developed in the >>not-too-distant future. A totally new energy industry is just around the >>corner. (DP) >Agreed. Solar power / renewable energy is already here, although not >yet in the quantity that makes a big dent in the oil monopolies. Why do you say "monopolies"? This term is constantly used about oil companies. There are hundreds of them. True, some of them are very large. Indeed, the largest company in the world in asset value, Gazprom, is one. But anyone who wants to buy spot oil can purchase from several oil companies from anywhere in the world at competitive prices. This is not the definition of a monopoly that I'm aware of. (DP) >The final result, I hope, will be that energy will be generated on- >site wherever possible, eliminating the transmission problems that >you note. There is abundant solar influx in most inhabited areas to >supply our residential needs. Coupled with passive solar home design >as well as solar hot water, we can get along just fine with a >drastically reduced need for oil. Other technologies, such as hydrogen >fueled fuel cells, may well transform the transportation industry. Yes, even in a temperate country like England, the use of solar cells and windmills can reduce the need to buy-in electricity completely in many homes. This sort of thing was impossible until a few years ago when the electricity generation industry was still state-run -- when it was a statutory monopoly. Over here, extensive trials are now taking place by large house builders in using solar roof tiles (looking no different from ordinary ones). I gather that the extra cost (about 5-7% on the cost of a new house) is paid for in about seven years -- and from then onwards it's a pure gain. Given its sunshine, I'm sure that most Californian homes could reduce their domestic consumption of electricity from the utilities to almost nil and may even be able to generate enough to drive their cars for normal commuter use. (DP) >It takes long range thinking and political education to make it happen >and that is just what is happening in California as well as many >other places. It may be democracy that will force Bush to reinstate the >Kyoto accords. The Bush administration is not faring well here. Many >filks are skeptical of his plans and know full well his connections >to the oil industry. We will have to wait and see. I think we're all fully aware that Bush's friends and connections are mostly oil people, so he's never going to get excited about Kyoto and similar proposals, even if it means saving the world. But that doesn't mean that he (and the oil companies) are going to be able to ignore any irrefutable evidence for potentially devastating man-made climate changes. (KH) >>And who will invest in this new industry when it comes along? Without >>doubt, the oil companies will be prominent. Some of them are even doing >>research into solar power themselves. When they start investing, will they >>still be your enemies? (DP) >There are signs that the oil companies see the handwriting on the wall. >They will be enemies only as long as they continue to do stupid >things that hurt the public. Will they change? They haven't yet! The oil companies are no more malevolent than any other business. There are good people and bad people among them just as in the general population. On the whole, though, the largest oil companies have been able to pick the brightest graduates from the universities for the last several decades. Their executives, junior and senior, have much the same values as any other other thoughtful person who cares about the world and its future. Of course, oil companies are going to be reluctant to change! That goes without saying, surely. Any business making money is disinclined to change. There would be a revolution among its workforce, customers and shareholders were it to do so. When the evidence is more complete, large companies will act very quickly indeed. (When fluorocarbons were definitely shown to be destroying the ozone layer, the large chemical companies stopped production within months and made substitutes -- years before governments passed legislation requiring them to do so.) It's as well to bear in mind that there's a very large (and not-so-hidden) political agenda in the Kyoto proposals. (I am not putting this forward as an argument against them.) The main force behind the proposals are not scientists, but politicians -- EC politicians and commissioners -- and these are mainly anti-American. The strongest force is probably France, a country whose politicians have been virulently anti-American ever since De Gaulle was rebuffed by Roosevelt during WWII. The EC has a terrific inferiority complex, particularly as the Euro has been going down in value ever since its inception and Europe's investment funds have been fleeing to America and England. The EC is desperate to show how macho it is, how important it is, how socially aware it is, so a delegation is going round the world trying to persuade everybody else to accept Kyoto and to cast Americans, and particularly Bush, as demons. But they're not going to succeed in persuading anybody until the Americans come aboard because countries like Japan and China know that the Americans have the best scientists in the world. When the latter agree among themselves about the world's climate then America will move very fast and far beyond the feeble Kyoto proposals (if the catastrophists are correct). Don't blame Bush. He's really a nonentity in this matter. Blame the extreme complexity of the problem. Keith Hudson ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
