Just last night on the New Inventors there was a printable solar cell on thin sheet plastic – cheap as chips to produce as opposed to the current generation of solar cells that depend on thick and rigid silicon wafers. Fourth generation nuclear engines are a reality. These are small reactors that burn nuclear waste from weapons and earlier generation reactors or uranium and thorium, burn 97% of the fuel as opposed to 3% in conventional reactors and produce waste that is safe after hundreds of years rather than many thousands. They can’t melt down, are factory sealed, delivered on the back of a truck, placed in a concrete bunker (in case anyone wants to try blowing it up with ANFO) and can supply cheap energy to 10,000 households at a time. A really cheap source of energy changes the equation totally. Coal and oil could then be kept for much more valuable purposes – materials engineering especially. Hydrogen could be produced in abundance and combined with carbon dioxide to form liquid fuels. Garbage, algae and cellulose can be converted to fuel oil or plastics. Technological development is occurring at an exponential rate and we can increasingly bring this to bear on problems of economic development. Cheap energy sources transform the prospects for better health, a secure food supply and education for all of the people of the world.
Out of a trillion government bucks - a few might go a to right place. But innovation is what capitalism does best. It is not a hope but business as usual. And if you want to be a social democrat and not believe this - well I can't give a rat's arse. On Sep 15, 2:32 am, "sploo.laroo" <[email protected]> wrote: > Despite my progressive tendencies (rather than because of them), I'm > more or less with you for the first four paragraphs (ignoring a few > technical issues). But where you say: > > > Given the diversity of technological > > approaches to the problem – a global aspirational goal of net zero > > greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, without higher energy costs, lower > > growth and greater restraint on human development, is possible ... > > It involves > > more global, public funding of research and development – in > > technologies that serve rather then diminish legitimate human > > development goals ... > > Are you certain that the former will lead to the latter? Or are you > merely hoping that it is so? > > -Eric -- 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
