[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Again, you  didn't answer the question, nor did I expect you to be able to
unless you have access to research I've not yet uncovered. 

But first, let's deal with what you did bring up: the idea that solar, tide
and geothermal energy is very large. We dare not touch even a fraction of
that energy if we don't want an environmental catastrophe on our hands. 

Consider what would happen if the sun was dark. That's what we'd all see if
we could harvest all the solar energy.

Consider what would happened if the waves of the ocean stopped, and the
ocean currents came to a halt. That's what we'd see if we could harvest all
of the wave energy.

Consider what would happen if we harvested all of the geothermal energy and
stopped all volcanic activity. Even if we didn't care about Yellowstone
becoming cold and quiet, the other effects are incalculable. 

Throughout history, men have made your mistake, saying "That source of
energy is so large, we need not consider how much is available." 

That's why we are short on wood, short on oil, short on everything mankind
has used for energy to date. What we've learned from the past is that, long,
long before we approach full use of one resource, using it causes an
environmental catastrophe. We dare not use a significant percentage of ANY
resource without great care. 

But that wasn't my question at all. As an environmentally-responsible person
I don't think in terms of "how much is there to take?" but rather I ask,
"How much do we need to thrive?" 

So my question was, "How much energy is needed?" It was not "How much can we
take?"

There's a huge difference. 

Once we've answered that question, or at least given it our best "first
estimate", then we need to look at our technology and resources and see
where we can find it. 

Once we do that, we have to make a huge "guess" about how much we dare
harvest from each source without damaging the planet. 

Then, and only then, can we move ahead with some confidence - based on how
good our guess was - that we can thrive without doing irreparable ecological
harm. 

Of course, in parallel with that is a huge effort to improve the technology
of harvesting, storing and using the energy from all of those sources. We're
already doing that. Perhaps we should do more, but at least we've started.
Just one of those centers is the Oak Ridge Labs(1) who played such a big
role in the development of nuclear power. 

And that's one you forgot. Every erg of energy we can harvest from solar,
geothermal, wave, wind is dwarfed to insignificance by the amount of energy
available from nuclear reactions. Indeed, it's such a huge source of energy
we need to be very careful with its use, but our track record both here in
the USA, where more than 10% of our electricity is generated in nuclear
plants, and around the world is excellent! The only serious accident to date
was a political blunder. It was politics that caused the Chernobyl plant to
be operating over the objections of scientists and engineers all over the
world. 

It's a reminder that we need look not just to better science, but to better
politics, better government and better international cooperation if we're to
solve the scientific riddles facing us today. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 


(1) http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/renewables/index.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:21 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby



On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

>
> My question is "What level of energy consumption is sustainable?"

So long as sun shine reaches the earth, the moon orbits the earth,  
and radioactive decay generates heat we have dependable sources of  
energy.  We can measure average solar energy delivered to the planet,  
average tidal motion, and heat loss from the core, so we can  
reasonably presume a sustainable energy budget based upon that  
total.  Anything greater is not sustainable over millennia.

The total energy from sun, tide and geothermal is very large.  The  
earth converts a predictable amount of this energy to drive the  
weather cycle and the plant cycle.  In the end we can predict the  
energy available for human consumption from those five sources.

Unless I have forgotten another energy source, that is the measure of  
"sustainable".

David
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet