Sqrl said:
Doubly agreed. Hydrocarbon usage is demonstrably unsustainable and it is foolish to continue without a transitional plan. I would be in support of any such plan that took a realistic approach to the transition. By realistic I mean not overly harsh economically, but I also mean realistic in that its not so averse to ill-effects as to be worthless. A fine line to be sure. The Cap'n'Trade bill we saw recently falls into a special brand of terrible however as it would have been both overly economically harsh but would have produced practically no benefit for the effort (this is something individual skeptics and alarmist both have actually agreed on - ironically enough). I'm personally a proponent of a multi-pronged approach with nuclear power as the centerpeice - to me it represents the only realistic solution to the problem given how little time for transition we've given ourselves as well as being one of the cheaper solutions. Although I fear if we move into these plans as the next subject of debate that we will be wildly off-topic so I'll leave it at that simple blurb. |
The problem is we all need to take a hit on this. When free ETS permits are given out, arguably the energy industries want 100% coverage for this, then nobody actually uses less energy and nobody reduces their energy use which is the whole point of cutting emissions. Evidence of this problem has already occured in european countries where because of free permits there has been no reduction at all in emissions.
And i disagree that other energy is not as efficient or cost effective as Nuclear, although some scientists have clearly supported nuclear as a lesser evil to deal with the co2 issue as soon as possible. 20 - 30 years to build plants is only one of the problems though.
Since we are talking economics i refer you the global interest in renewable energy technology stocks, and the optimistic support from investors in their potential.
"In an Aug. 13 research note, UBS (UBS) analyst Robin Cheng said she expects photovoltaic electricity to be competitive with power from the grid by 2010 in those parts of Europe and the U.S. that get more regular sunshine, and by 2014 in regions that experience more cloud cover. "Until then, the industry is heavily dependent on government incentives," she writes."
(http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2009/pi20090813_981271.htm?campaign_id=yhoo)
It is doable and unlike nuclear it is cheaper, quicker and it is already garnering huge support from the global economy and manufacturing states. Germany's and Japan's experience is evidence of this, China's boom further solidifies the markets view.
“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.
