RE: GAS-L: Mother Earth?? Then we practice matricide.

[Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl>]

Peter Singfield writes:

	.........the USA was supposed to solve its electrical supply
problems with nuclear power. But this became unpopular in the public mind.
Many today suspect this was stimulated by a clever campaign by companies
directly involved in fossil fuel supply.

Over the years I have had and still have close ties with both industries. I
have heard many arguments why nuclear would not be the ideal solution.
However, that the quoted unpopularity was stimulated by the fossil fuels
industry is new to me. In fact, there was a time that just about every
energy (oil) major had a stake in both nuclear fuel AND coal. Those fuels
didn't so much compete, as well as rather complement each other.

> There is no question that the formula of large centralized nuclear power
> plants for the concentrated power demand areas and biomass for the
> decentralized areas would put an end to carbon emissions.
> 
Although I personally agree with this observation, it was not my intention
to include nuclear as such in this debate on this List (there are other
places). But rather to point out that IF nuclear (for whatever reason) is
not taking the place of depleting fossil fuels, there will be a heavy demand
for renewable energy conversion. And the point I stress: REGARDLESS of the
precise rate of temperature rise as predicted by the IPCC.

> But we have two problems with this. One is that most of the scientific
> minded people believe that CO2 emissions are not the problem --
> 
I respectfully disagree. My impression is different. There is only a
relatively small body of scientists activily debating against the possible
or probable relationship between GHG and global warming. Many more will
argue that the ultimate proof is still out etc, but those are not actually
fighting the presumption and at worst are scientifically neutral.

>  and I personally feel no amount of evidence will change their attitudes. 
> 
You may be right there. But wheras the number of active opponists might not
be as large as you feel it is, the impact of those opponents will be
proportionally less.

> The second is related to the first -- being as all these nay-sayers are
> out there -- no initiative can be found among the masses to demand this
> change.
> 
Judging from the growth rate of green electricity sales, I conclude that
there is growing awareness "among the masses". At least in the parts I live.
That will have its effect on political decision making. For 100+ countries
world wide that political process will take a few years, but given your time
perspective, Peter, including ice ages and interglacials, the progress over
the past 10 years is not even that bad. 
The difference between the previous and the most recent IPCC position agreed
upon, gives rise for hope. 

> Scientifically, there is no question we could convert to nuclear power in
> short order. And no question that we can't apply biomass power plants.
> 
The biomass plants would be even easier to get on line than those nuclear
ones in short order! It rather is the biomass fuel, in bulk, and supplied
sustainably, which would be the short term bottle neck! But again, major
technologies take many decades to reach maturity, including renewables and
certainly including biomass conversion on a major scale. No reason not to
start, though!

> Sadly it is the "will" that is lacking. So -- not this turn of the wheel.
> 
I always look back and see that over the past 10 (biomass), 20 (wind), even
30 (solar) years a lot has been accomplished. Renewables is NOT an interest
of concerned individuals alone anymore. There definately is a certain "will"
going around, probably even beyond the point of no return. Also in the US,
look at solar and wind, and geothermal, for instance. And the White House
Biomass-initiative is promising as well. Therefore I believe that in another
10 or 20 years we will see that substantially more will have been
accomplished in many parts of the world (provided the present momentum
behind renewables and sustainable continues).

So lets work at keeping that momentum up. 

Andries Weststeijn


The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml