Heronblade said:
I won't argue with you on the topic of energy and waste conservation, that is something we need to do regardless of what other measures we take.
But what kind of "green energy" are you talking about in this case. Be it for vehicles or overall electrical production, I defy you to name a viable system that is economically feasible on a large scale. With the exception of course of hydroelectric (since we've already built as many as we can), nuclear, or fossil fuels.
But you have to realize that energy and waste conservation have many of the same answers that global warming does. Switching away from fossil fuels, cutting down on landfill use, and recycling materials all have a similar thread in the broader issue of environmental sustainability.
And if you want other systems that are "economically viable," well they're all economically viable, perhaps with the exception of solar (that said, the rate of decline in the price of solar energy means that it's currently economical to install a solar panel and have it in use for 20 years, and it'll be even more economical a few years down the line.) Wind power has been a perfectly economical alternative to traditional power for some time now, as seen by the massive development of wind power in places like Texas and the North Sea. Geothermal power, while more limited in scope, is as well (just for heating your house: I did the math, and with current energy cost, it'd only take 15 years for the average seasonal american household to recover all its costs from geothermal energy.) The issue is that non-renewable energy companies have a far firmer footing, meaning better existing infrastructure, and more capital to expand on non-renewable enterprise.
An example of a novel idea that combines everything: There's an initiative that's been going on in Brazil for some time now, that takes the depleted husks of sugarcane, breaks the unusable cellulose down into ethanol for use in biofuel, burns what organic material is left over to power the entire process, and then ships out the ash left from the burning as organic fertilizer for use on those same sugarcane fields. But of course, I'm not sure why exactly they'd do it; there's obviously no possible economic opportunity in that system which would turn otherwise waste sugarcane husks into biofuel and fertilizer, right?
Heronblade said:
Blue_vision said:
But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.
Several things:
First, most obviously, is that electricity provides the possibility for 100% renewable energy in automobiles. Just have those electric cars hooked up to a wind, geothermal, solar, or hydroelectric grid, and the GHG emissions while in use are basically zero. And even if not, depending on how far you are from the closest power plant, the efficiency of energy conversion in even a large-scale coal power plant to electricity and to the car will likely end up being less than in an internal combustion engine, which are notoriously inefficient.
Secondly is that, again, it's all about the existing infrastructure. Once you get the proper infrastructure for electric cars (which really isn't that hard when compared to the infrastructure that went into making gas-powered automobiles,) it's all benefit. And you might as well start now, as we're going to run out of oil sometime. The question is when; is it going to be now, where we can transition in an organized fashion towards a post-oil economy, or is it going to be 20 years down the road when we're in a rush to convert our infrastructure to renewable resources, and have essentially released all the carbon deposits that we can? That 5-10% may not be worth it in 5 years, or even 20, but it will eventually make up its cost, and it's something that we'll need to do anyways.
Of course, the novel thing to do would say "we just don't need this many cars," and instead build better public transport systems, so we could cut the number of cars in total (meaning less energy consumed,) and face lower costs when transitioning from oil to electricity.
