Robert,
The problem of AGW or Climate Change is what happens going forward.
Using coal as a primary energy source can be expected to result in
greater CO2 emissions for each BTU produced and that looks like a bad
idea. Of course, there are processes to convert coal to other useful
energy carriers and those have been shown to work, most recently in
South Africa. But what will be left behind and is there enough coal
to rapidly replace the dwindling oil production after Peak Oil? Also,
do you think the price of oil produced from coal will still be the
same after Peak Oil pushes the economic cost of all other energy
sources higher. China and India are in the process of building 800
coal fired electric power plants (see below).
Here's a talk (45 min video) which I just got around to watching on
the subject:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/01/15/jeff-rubin-at-the-business-of-climate-change/
If you want to consider the Peak Oil problem, there are several web
sites devoted to the problem. I have found The Oil Drum to be very
informative and the site offers numerous links and many articles
archived.
http://www.theoildrum.com/
Economic growth is the problem, not the solution. Without population
control of some sort, leading to smaller numbers of people, the rest
of the world can never expect to reach OECD levels of energy
consumption per capita. You are perhaps lucky in that Australia (I've
not been there) may still have a chance to change direction.
If you do decide to unsubscribe, have a nice life, as the saying
goes...
E. S.
--------------------------------
Robbo wrote:
> Even modest carbon cuts (in a highly developed with modest debt and a
> stable banking system) of 5% (on 2000) by 2020 – are not achievable.
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/emissions-target-cuts-cannot-be-met/story-e6frg6nf-1225821385402
>
> There is a lot more coal than oil. There are lots of fossil fuel
> sources for 100 years or more – economically feasible to convert coal
> to oil at US$70 a barrel and A$20 a tonne coal. We have lots of cheap
> dirty brown coal for that – and are building conversion plants.
>
> http://www.australiancoal.com.au/coal-and-its-uses_coal-uses_global-role-of-coal.aspx
>
> Certainly there are technological solutions – even out of the square
> ones.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18387-co2-in-the-air-could-be-green-fuel-feedstock.html
>
> Continued economic growth is critical to human welfare over most of
> the planet. 2 billion people living on a dollar a day or less do not
> need a neo-malthusian inspired economic experiment to further blight
> their lives and aspirations.
>
> You should get used to it – it ain’t gunna happen. You and Martenson
> have a typically UScentric view. You need to get out more. And yes -
> I will have to try unsubscribing again.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
