A Dangerous Energy ClimatePanelists at the Emerging Technologies Conference voiced an urgent need for aggressive policies to promote energy efficiency, renewable power sources, and carbon sequestration.
The world's exploding energy demand--coupled with the growing risk of catastrophic rises in sea levels and climate change driven by greenhouse gases--create a singular challenge that demands urgent policy action, energy experts said at an MIT conference yesterday. "If we don't throw everything we have at energy efficiency right now, and start to do things we know how to do right now [in fossil-fuel alternatives], we don't have a chance" of halting drastic planetary changes, said Nathan Lewis, a chemist at Caltech whose research interests include new solar-power materials. Lewis spoke yesterday as part of a panel on energy at the Emerging Technologies Conference. Robert Armstrong, an MIT chemical engineer and associate director of the MIT Energy Initiative, said meeting a projected doubling of global energy demand in 50 years, while maintaining greenhouse-gas levels below twice preindustrial levels, would require adding another global energy infrastructure of today's scale--but with zero carbon-dioxide emissions. Considering that, right now, around 86 percent of energy consumed by humans comes from fossil fuels, "certainly these are grand challenges," he said. As a result, the world needs to massively implement conservation and efficiency measures, install renewable power sources, build new nuclear power plants, and sequester carbon dioxide underground, where possible, said Joseph Romm, a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy and founder of the Center for Energy & Climate Solutions. "Global warming is going to transform the lives of every single person in this room," he said. "Within 20 years, if not 5 years, it will become the issue, the only issue. It will require a massive redirection of capital." Caltech's Lewis said the question has become one of risk management. "If we don't cure cancer, the world will stay the same. If we don't cure AIDS, the world will stay the same. But if we don't solve this problem in the next 20 years, from a scientific viewpoint, the world is not ever going to be the same," he said. "How much are we willing to spend to avoid the risk of doing something that we don't like for the next 3,000 years or more?" The biggest policy need is for some regulation of carbon dioxide, Lewis said. Currently, there is little economic reason for companies to pursue non-carbon-emitting alternatives or to sequester the gas. Among renewable sources, solar power holds the largest potential to supplant a meaningful amount of fossil fuel, but all alternatives must be pursued, he added. And an international effort is needed to convince countries like China that global environmental risks greatly outweigh short-term economic considerations that drive the consumption of fossil fuels.
|









Comments
http://www.solarcookers.org/
http://www.cooldriver.org/
The first one is an organization that teaches people in the third world how to make & use solar ovens out of cardboard and tinfoil that can be used to pasteurize water and cook food without having to resort to deforestation to get fuel. One woman saved enough money to send her daughter to school. It short, it helps get the 3rd world hooked on highly efficient solar thermal. There's a very strong 'teach a man to fish' aspect to it.
The second website allows you to subsidize green energy as a way for you to 'offset' your fossil-fuel use.
Regards
Natron
09/29/2006
Posts:2
Reiel Folven
folven
09/29/2006
Posts:1
I think we could easily handle the current population if we did a better job of handling transportation, urban planning & just about every other issue regarding resources. The methods exist, but we don't use them as much as possible.
Given that the average American is overweight, we could probably eat half the food and ship the rest elsewhere. That would be a good start in supporting the world population.
Natron
09/29/2006
Posts:2
bike4earth
09/30/2006
Posts:1
Yes, there will be disputes about dangers and risks. But ANY energy installation, ranging from liquid gas terminals to wind mills in Nantucket Sound provokes controversy.
lambdafunds
09/29/2006
Posts:9
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rifkin29sep29,0,4669548.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Although I don't share his enthousiasm for Hydrogen, I think he makes a good case against nuclear energy. I think we have better options.
beauchamp
09/29/2006
Posts:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Personally I think pulling more carbon out of the earth's crust is a bad idea even if sequestering pans out. I am also very doubtfull about biomass unless you are talking about deriving fuel from unused waste streams. The remaining no carbon energy sources are interesting execpt for dam based hydro. So the unanswered question is can they ever achieve the capacity needed to make our energy carbon free. Or are they just another impractical dead end.
Gurthang
10/02/2006
Posts:20
Efficiency, renewable sources, and simple conservation are the conservative's options. Why don't mainstream conservatives remember these principles when nuclear is discussed?
MarkShapiro
09/29/2006
Posts:13
1)nuclear energy should be the cornerstone of our none carbon based sources. No other technology has the capacity to replace our energy needs.
2) carbon sequestering needs to implemented full force, even using nuclear to increase the amount pulled from the atmosphere
3) coal to oil or oil shale should be pursued vigorously to reduce our dependence on our current unstable sources (with carbon sequestering, of course)
4)Wind, solar, conservation should be aggressively pursued.
davewt
09/29/2006
Posts:1
mcclune
09/30/2006
Posts:5
Mike_H_50
10/04/2006
Posts:1
CalebGibson
10/21/2006
Posts:2
CalebGibson
10/21/2006
Posts:2