But only if every person on earth straps a 50 Watt Bill Nye custom Solar Panel to their back whilst pedalling their 50 Watt Bill Nye DynoEbike in ever decreasing diameter circles together.
The outcome: 100 Watts of ripple free clean renewable power per person to charge our mobile phones to enable permanent connection to http://www.billnye.com for real time (and ad free) guidance on our way forward in life.
Don’t worry about all of the other power consuming stuff we currently find useful, after all its not really important in the overall scheme of things on reflection.
Bill Nye thank god you’ve finally arrived to save us all.
Craig can you find us some more Bill Nye’s around the traps to educate us please. Bill elevates the tone and authority of your energy-centric blog to new stratospheric heights.
Since reading your comment, I’ve seen the error of my way’s !
I’m a convert ! I’m ready to be saved by the enlightenment of the Bill Nye crusade ! Yes indeedy, I’ve already started to weave my own cloth, knit my own yogurt, smoke my own m…, well you get the idea.
Hush, the Bill Nye anointed ones are emerging from the bushes (much of which they appear to have been smoking) to spread enlightenment to wretched sinners like me. Hark ! I can hear their anthem calling me,….
(sings loudly and completely off key, to the tune of the socialist Labour movement anthem “Red Flag”),
The people’s flag is turning green
It’s colour has a mildew’d hew
Beneath it’s furls, we’ll form committees
While keeping the budget in deepest Red.
The anthem is interrupted by the appearance of the great one himself, a hush descends, only broken by the soft whirring of the fully portable Bill Nye perpetual motion machine, (patent pending).
First of all, you both claim some form of enlightened perspective, so you should be careful either of throwing insults or not putting out something that can easily be insulted.
If you assume the average solar insolation of ~250 W/m2, and the average land-based efficiency of collection of ~25%, then we could theorize a global continuous maximum solar energy recovery of ~9.167 TW, or ~80 PWh/year.
The department of energy estimates that roughly 3 million km2 of land in the continental U.S. would support wind turbines (110 m hub) that would generate 40% cf winds, which would work out to ~1 MW/km2. So in just the continental U.S. there is a potential for ~3 TW of wind power yielding ~10 PWh/year, and that’s just America.
Before even considering something like enhanced Geothermal, biomass burning, etc… just using wind and solar we can easily provide for all energy needs.
The question involves a realistic timeline, not whether the goal itself is realistic.
You guys are essentially making asses out of yourselves by mocking an entirely realistic goal.
Both sides have to be honest about the potential, and honest about the time frames and costs.
Oh dear, it looks like you have bravely decided to step into the lion’s den as a substitute for Bill Nye.
I’m sure none of us mean any real disrespect. I don’t think Bill Nye is a dishonest rogue, merely deluded by his passionate idealism.
So to be fair, let’s analyze your (and Bill’s) proposition.
” We can Power the World with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
For the sake of argument perhaps we can agree on the total amount of energy currently required by the “World” .
This is pretty difficult to assess with any real accuracy as estimates vary widely, and factors such as primary energy and final energy consumption are the subject of on going debate.
But just let’s take the IEA 2014 figure of 164,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) to be a starting point. (energy needs will dramatically rise as more developing nations industrialize).
Okay, so let’s see how we go about generating, supplying, and transmitting that much energy on a global scale.
Even before we begin, your proposition collapses with the sound of a fire tender racing to a fire. No technology exists to enable a 40 ton vehicle traveling over gradients, at high speed to a destination of indeterminable length, and pump water at the end.
Nor is the fire tender a lone example ! All over the planet there are millions of similar essential machines only able to be powered by Oil. For at least 20% of the worlds total energy consumption, no viable alternate technology currently exists.
So the proposition is busted before we really begin !
But for the sake of argument, let’s examine the feasibility of Wind and Solar.
The problem of these technologies is low generating capacity and intermittent nature. Industrialized nations require “power on demand”, not “power when available”.
Now correct me if I misread your supporting data, but you claim Wind can generate “3 TW” in the US alone, and globally Solar can generate 9.167 TW. (your figures,not mine).
Your calculations concur with those provided by the IEA, which also places world energy requirement at 164,000 Twh.
You seem to be deficient by a margin of about 94% !?
As you can see, there’s a fatal flaw in your reasoning.
But, let’s be more optimistic. Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Hyrdo and a host of other minor energy generating technologies may all have a role to play. Solar in particular is already proving invaluable.
These technologies may in the future account for as much as 20-30% of global energy consumption. (Oil will remain essential for specialist applications and for petro-chemical products)
Where will the other 60=70% come from ? The elephant standing in the corner, is advanced nuclear technology. That’s the future power supply for industrialized and industrializing nations.
If you cannot follow a very simple discussion and keep straight the difference between energy and power, then you are lost at the start, and not worth wasting time on.
Please actually try. I don’t have time to instruct at a high school level.
In terms of demand, you are also confusing potential chemical energy of inputs (164 PWh), with produced energy output (electrical energy produced by renewable energy). The average vehicle gets ~20-25% efficiency, the average coal power plant gets 31% efficiency, the average NG power plant gets 43% efficiency, and the average nuclear power plant gets 15% efficiency. When the IEA says we’ll need 164 PWh of energy, that doesn’t mean we need 164 PWh of produced energy from renewable sources.
I wasn’t quoting stats on the total amount of energy in the winds, I was stating the amount of electrical energy we could harvest, likewise with solar.
Again, it’s about cost and plausible timelines, not potential.
Also, I have used electricity to convert CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons… it’s not even novel, the core process is 80 years old. There are plenty of cases where hydrocarbons are inherently necessary. That’s not a problem, in such cases we can easily produce them using renewable energy… or of course we can just grow them, a process that is worse for the planet and far more energy intensive; but still.
Your mockery doesn’t change the fact that your position is absolutely one based on childlike stupidity.
@Marcopolo
You are incorrigible; I admire that quality in the right hands.
But the Bill Nye’s of the world should watch out.
They will definitely be called out for perpetrating falsehoods and fantasies on a very impressionable and vulnerable public on what might be seen in future historical context as the critical issue of human history (greenhouse gas emissions and new age energy generation science and technologies able to eliminate them to insignificant levels permanently; whilst at the same time, increasing massively the worlds available distributed energy for all people and communities, and in particular those in developing countries).
Bill Nye simply doesn’t understand this global energy imperative.
Where Bill Nye has failed spectacularly is in not qualifying his throw away headliner with facts. I suspect that the reason might be that he lacks the qualifications and mental acuity to understand things meaningful about a subject that demands a forensic understanding and level of expertise in assembling facts.
And of course Marcopolo, Bill Nye has no chance whatsoever of warding off old foxes like you and Frank Eggers, from taking him on with extreme prejudice.
Craig on the other hand most often enjoys balancing on the fence, which might get a little uncomfortable at times on the posterior.
The Bill Nye’s of the energy-centric blogosphere need to demonstrate that they “have the nuggets” to step up to the plate when under pressure, and present a detailed response for everyone to be apprised of, in defence of their credibility. It either withstands critical examination, or it doesn’t. Professionalism can’t demand anything simpler than that premise.
Of course this is a challenge that Bill Nye won’t take up! But let me try here. Bill please take me up on this challenge if you are indeed contactable.
Lies masquerading as facts are as old as human expression itself; Bill Nye you have been exposed.
My reply to Marcopolo also applies to you. There is no time for idiot partisan talking points. The left has to be honest about the magnitude and scope of the goal, and take realistic approaches and have realistic timelines. You and yours need to be honest about the potential that a future society can achieve.
In this thread you and Marcopolo are just embarrassing yourselves. It’s almost painful to read.
For a guy who admonishes others for impolite discourse, you don’t hesitate to employ impolite terminology yourself !
But I guess that kind of hypocritical entitlement goes with the leftist ideology, so we forgive you.
Setting aside Lawrence and my own simple, child like embarrassment, and not wishing to cause such an intellectually enlightened soul as yourself further pain, I’ll readily concede that down here among the intellectual peons, we inhabit a real world in which technology and resources actually have to work !
There may be another dimension where idealistic, futuristic scenarios are relevant, but back here on Planet Reality, our small brains would like to know how your claims actually work.
I understand that someone who has obviously been over-exposed to one too many diatribes by Jeremy Corbyn, may no longer be capable of simple direct communication with his fellow citizens, but let’s try to understand one another, this time without all the gratuitous abuse, eh !
The proposition is simple, the author claims (as do you) that by expanding wind and solar power the planet can achieve 100% of it’s energy from renewable sources.
I say, that’s not technically or logistically viable.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong but your argument seems to be
A) at some point in the future, (not defined) something or some mysterious technology, may be developed to allow Bill Nye’s proposition to become reality.
I take it that’s what you mean by, “Again, it’s about cost and plausible timelines, not potential”.
Glenn, what can I say ? Yes, in the far distant future anything may be possible.
But that’s not Bill Nye’s contention !
Like most advocates, Bill Nye is intending to influence policy makers and the public. His purpose is to bolster taxpayer funding and government support for Wind and Solar, at the expense of other technologies.
His message is not one of a distant utopian vision, but politically motivated implementation in the present and near future.
Now, like most of the general public, I’m a simple sort of chap. When I’m ask to pay for something I like to know how it works. When I express doubts, I’m not reassured by advocates who scream at me that I’m too childish to understand !
Nor is Joe Public reassured by advocates who can’t substantiate wild claims.
I ask, “how do I power my New Holland CR10.90 with a Cursor 16 litre engine developing 652 hp, with Wind or Solar Energy” ?
When my neighbor, the Volunteer Fire Chief, asks how he can power his 35 ton Fire tender using wind or power, neither of expect the answer to be some unavailable technology of the future may exist one day !
Ideologically driven wild claims of this sore are responsible for creating distrust among the general community for clean tech adoption.
Passing off science fiction, or hopeful dreams, as scientific fact for political purpose, is beginning to lose credibility with the people asked to pay the muddled thinking of dreamers.
First, it will not take any futuristic technology. It will merely take time and implementation. There is a difference.
Second, if you want to know about converting CO2 to hydrocarbons, just ask. http://www.windfuels.com
We had high hopes and good initial lab results, good simulation results, etc… but withered for lack of funding. When the price of oil crashed, interest crashed with it… and a process that could compete with ~$50/bbl oil was no longer something that people were willing to pour money into a 6-year+ speculative play while the stock market was booming. I blame the DOE for being institutionally corrupt and incompetent, but I understand the hesitance from the investors.
So we didn’t make it happen (yet, we’ll return)… but someone will. The technology works, the process works, and it will again be market viable.
You have to understand: Just because YOU don’t know something doesn’t mean that the knowledge isn’t known. It is. Sometimes you have to allow other people’s expertise to inform your extremely narrowly defined opinion.
I think I see your problem when it comes to securing funding. I never found arrogant condescension a useful skill when seeking R&D funds.
In fact, contrary to your assumption, for more than 10 years, I’ve been following the various research projects for capturing and turning CO2 into useful products, including the waste-to-fuel technology developed by scientists at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I also followed with interest the progress of Scientists, in Canada, the UK and other places research with similar technology.
(I’ve also helped finance research projects to turn CO2 into stone).
Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the US DOE, but I’ve never witnessed a single substantiated case of corruption !
Corruption is a very harmful accusation for a hopeful applicant to level, since it indicates petulance and a lack of commercial realism casting doubt on the validity of your project and yourself.
Like Sheldon Cooper in the TV series, the potential of research may be obscured by the advocated difficult personality.
You may not think it, but I do believe a vast number of potentially game-changing innovations are being currently researched. It’s not hard to believe that if even a small percentage succeed the future can be very optimistic.
I don’t share the pessimistic Malthusian hand-wringing so characteristic of most environmental activists. I never discount the possibility of radical technological leaps enabling humanity to continue to grow and prosper by our capacity to adapt and develop technologies capable of facing future environmental challenges.
I strongly support all research. Even research that doesn’t lead to commercialization can prove a building block, or at least eliminate dead end projects.
However, economies have priorities and constraints. Not every potential technology is affordable, or practical. The public purse has many demands, each of these demands believes itself to be the most deserving.
The advantages of future technologies are infinite and research should be pursued, but practical realism must be a priority when making policy concerning the immediate future.
Had Bill Nye announced :-
” In the future the World may be Powered with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
I would raise no objection, in fact I would support the possibility. But that’s not his contention! Bill Nye’s contention is a simple promotion for Wind and Solar claiming :-
“We can Power the World with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
Here’s a 10-second clip featuring “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”
Craig,
Q. Can We Power the World with Renewable Energy?(Wind And Solar).
A. No
YES definately.
But only if every person on earth straps a 50 Watt Bill Nye custom Solar Panel to their back whilst pedalling their 50 Watt Bill Nye DynoEbike in ever decreasing diameter circles together.
The outcome: 100 Watts of ripple free clean renewable power per person to charge our mobile phones to enable permanent connection to http://www.billnye.com for real time (and ad free) guidance on our way forward in life.
Don’t worry about all of the other power consuming stuff we currently find useful, after all its not really important in the overall scheme of things on reflection.
Bill Nye thank god you’ve finally arrived to save us all.
Craig can you find us some more Bill Nye’s around the traps to educate us please. Bill elevates the tone and authority of your energy-centric blog to new stratospheric heights.
Bill – your the man.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Hallelujah !
Since reading your comment, I’ve seen the error of my way’s !
I’m a convert ! I’m ready to be saved by the enlightenment of the Bill Nye crusade ! Yes indeedy, I’ve already started to weave my own cloth, knit my own yogurt, smoke my own m…, well you get the idea.
Hush, the Bill Nye anointed ones are emerging from the bushes (much of which they appear to have been smoking) to spread enlightenment to wretched sinners like me. Hark ! I can hear their anthem calling me,….
(sings loudly and completely off key, to the tune of the socialist Labour movement anthem “Red Flag”),
The people’s flag is turning green
It’s colour has a mildew’d hew
Beneath it’s furls, we’ll form committees
While keeping the budget in deepest Red.
The anthem is interrupted by the appearance of the great one himself, a hush descends, only broken by the soft whirring of the fully portable Bill Nye perpetual motion machine, (patent pending).
Oh joy, oh rapture, we are saved !
Marcopolo, Lawrence,
First of all, you both claim some form of enlightened perspective, so you should be careful either of throwing insults or not putting out something that can easily be insulted.
If you assume the average solar insolation of ~250 W/m2, and the average land-based efficiency of collection of ~25%, then we could theorize a global continuous maximum solar energy recovery of ~9.167 TW, or ~80 PWh/year.
The department of energy estimates that roughly 3 million km2 of land in the continental U.S. would support wind turbines (110 m hub) that would generate 40% cf winds, which would work out to ~1 MW/km2. So in just the continental U.S. there is a potential for ~3 TW of wind power yielding ~10 PWh/year, and that’s just America.
Before even considering something like enhanced Geothermal, biomass burning, etc… just using wind and solar we can easily provide for all energy needs.
The question involves a realistic timeline, not whether the goal itself is realistic.
You guys are essentially making asses out of yourselves by mocking an entirely realistic goal.
Both sides have to be honest about the potential, and honest about the time frames and costs.
Glenn,
Oh dear, it looks like you have bravely decided to step into the lion’s den as a substitute for Bill Nye.
I’m sure none of us mean any real disrespect. I don’t think Bill Nye is a dishonest rogue, merely deluded by his passionate idealism.
So to be fair, let’s analyze your (and Bill’s) proposition.
” We can Power the World with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
For the sake of argument perhaps we can agree on the total amount of energy currently required by the “World” .
This is pretty difficult to assess with any real accuracy as estimates vary widely, and factors such as primary energy and final energy consumption are the subject of on going debate.
But just let’s take the IEA 2014 figure of 164,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) to be a starting point. (energy needs will dramatically rise as more developing nations industrialize).
Okay, so let’s see how we go about generating, supplying, and transmitting that much energy on a global scale.
Even before we begin, your proposition collapses with the sound of a fire tender racing to a fire. No technology exists to enable a 40 ton vehicle traveling over gradients, at high speed to a destination of indeterminable length, and pump water at the end.
Nor is the fire tender a lone example ! All over the planet there are millions of similar essential machines only able to be powered by Oil. For at least 20% of the worlds total energy consumption, no viable alternate technology currently exists.
So the proposition is busted before we really begin !
But for the sake of argument, let’s examine the feasibility of Wind and Solar.
The problem of these technologies is low generating capacity and intermittent nature. Industrialized nations require “power on demand”, not “power when available”.
Now correct me if I misread your supporting data, but you claim Wind can generate “3 TW” in the US alone, and globally Solar can generate 9.167 TW. (your figures,not mine).
Your calculations concur with those provided by the IEA, which also places world energy requirement at 164,000 Twh.
You seem to be deficient by a margin of about 94% !?
As you can see, there’s a fatal flaw in your reasoning.
But, let’s be more optimistic. Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Hyrdo and a host of other minor energy generating technologies may all have a role to play. Solar in particular is already proving invaluable.
These technologies may in the future account for as much as 20-30% of global energy consumption. (Oil will remain essential for specialist applications and for petro-chemical products)
Where will the other 60=70% come from ? The elephant standing in the corner, is advanced nuclear technology. That’s the future power supply for industrialized and industrializing nations.
Marcopolo,
If you cannot follow a very simple discussion and keep straight the difference between energy and power, then you are lost at the start, and not worth wasting time on.
Please actually try. I don’t have time to instruct at a high school level.
In terms of demand, you are also confusing potential chemical energy of inputs (164 PWh), with produced energy output (electrical energy produced by renewable energy). The average vehicle gets ~20-25% efficiency, the average coal power plant gets 31% efficiency, the average NG power plant gets 43% efficiency, and the average nuclear power plant gets 15% efficiency. When the IEA says we’ll need 164 PWh of energy, that doesn’t mean we need 164 PWh of produced energy from renewable sources.
I wasn’t quoting stats on the total amount of energy in the winds, I was stating the amount of electrical energy we could harvest, likewise with solar.
Again, it’s about cost and plausible timelines, not potential.
Also, I have used electricity to convert CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons… it’s not even novel, the core process is 80 years old. There are plenty of cases where hydrocarbons are inherently necessary. That’s not a problem, in such cases we can easily produce them using renewable energy… or of course we can just grow them, a process that is worse for the planet and far more energy intensive; but still.
Your mockery doesn’t change the fact that your position is absolutely one based on childlike stupidity.
Ha!
After that, I screwed up and put “164 PW of energy”, when I obviously meant 164 PWh… Ah the joy of typos in a forum that doesn’t allow editing.
🙂
I fixed that for you. Sorry I don’t know how to change this regrettable shortcoming of the blog architecture.
@Marcopolo
You are incorrigible; I admire that quality in the right hands.
But the Bill Nye’s of the world should watch out.
They will definitely be called out for perpetrating falsehoods and fantasies on a very impressionable and vulnerable public on what might be seen in future historical context as the critical issue of human history (greenhouse gas emissions and new age energy generation science and technologies able to eliminate them to insignificant levels permanently; whilst at the same time, increasing massively the worlds available distributed energy for all people and communities, and in particular those in developing countries).
Bill Nye simply doesn’t understand this global energy imperative.
Where Bill Nye has failed spectacularly is in not qualifying his throw away headliner with facts. I suspect that the reason might be that he lacks the qualifications and mental acuity to understand things meaningful about a subject that demands a forensic understanding and level of expertise in assembling facts.
And of course Marcopolo, Bill Nye has no chance whatsoever of warding off old foxes like you and Frank Eggers, from taking him on with extreme prejudice.
Craig on the other hand most often enjoys balancing on the fence, which might get a little uncomfortable at times on the posterior.
The Bill Nye’s of the energy-centric blogosphere need to demonstrate that they “have the nuggets” to step up to the plate when under pressure, and present a detailed response for everyone to be apprised of, in defence of their credibility. It either withstands critical examination, or it doesn’t. Professionalism can’t demand anything simpler than that premise.
Of course this is a challenge that Bill Nye won’t take up! But let me try here. Bill please take me up on this challenge if you are indeed contactable.
Lies masquerading as facts are as old as human expression itself; Bill Nye you have been exposed.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
My reply to Marcopolo also applies to you. There is no time for idiot partisan talking points. The left has to be honest about the magnitude and scope of the goal, and take realistic approaches and have realistic timelines. You and yours need to be honest about the potential that a future society can achieve.
In this thread you and Marcopolo are just embarrassing yourselves. It’s almost painful to read.
Glenn,
For a guy who admonishes others for impolite discourse, you don’t hesitate to employ impolite terminology yourself !
But I guess that kind of hypocritical entitlement goes with the leftist ideology, so we forgive you.
Setting aside Lawrence and my own simple, child like embarrassment, and not wishing to cause such an intellectually enlightened soul as yourself further pain, I’ll readily concede that down here among the intellectual peons, we inhabit a real world in which technology and resources actually have to work !
There may be another dimension where idealistic, futuristic scenarios are relevant, but back here on Planet Reality, our small brains would like to know how your claims actually work.
I understand that someone who has obviously been over-exposed to one too many diatribes by Jeremy Corbyn, may no longer be capable of simple direct communication with his fellow citizens, but let’s try to understand one another, this time without all the gratuitous abuse, eh !
The proposition is simple, the author claims (as do you) that by expanding wind and solar power the planet can achieve 100% of it’s energy from renewable sources.
I say, that’s not technically or logistically viable.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong but your argument seems to be
A) at some point in the future, (not defined) something or some mysterious technology, may be developed to allow Bill Nye’s proposition to become reality.
I take it that’s what you mean by, “Again, it’s about cost and plausible timelines, not potential”.
Glenn, what can I say ? Yes, in the far distant future anything may be possible.
But that’s not Bill Nye’s contention !
Like most advocates, Bill Nye is intending to influence policy makers and the public. His purpose is to bolster taxpayer funding and government support for Wind and Solar, at the expense of other technologies.
His message is not one of a distant utopian vision, but politically motivated implementation in the present and near future.
Now, like most of the general public, I’m a simple sort of chap. When I’m ask to pay for something I like to know how it works. When I express doubts, I’m not reassured by advocates who scream at me that I’m too childish to understand !
Nor is Joe Public reassured by advocates who can’t substantiate wild claims.
I ask, “how do I power my New Holland CR10.90 with a Cursor 16 litre engine developing 652 hp, with Wind or Solar Energy” ?
When my neighbor, the Volunteer Fire Chief, asks how he can power his 35 ton Fire tender using wind or power, neither of expect the answer to be some unavailable technology of the future may exist one day !
Ideologically driven wild claims of this sore are responsible for creating distrust among the general community for clean tech adoption.
Passing off science fiction, or hopeful dreams, as scientific fact for political purpose, is beginning to lose credibility with the people asked to pay the muddled thinking of dreamers.
Some reading:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/299405-iowa-wind-farm-generates-more-tax-credits-than-electricity
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/power-points/4442678/The-gap-between-renewable-energy-promises-and-reality
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/10/green-power-gridlock-why-renewable-energy-is-no-alternative/#71309eb56a81
http://dailysignal.com//2013/05/02/solar-energy-embarrassingly-less-productive-than-coal/
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21579149-germanys-energiewende-bodes-ill-countrys-european-leadership-tilting-windmills
Marcopolo,
First, it will not take any futuristic technology. It will merely take time and implementation. There is a difference.
Second, if you want to know about converting CO2 to hydrocarbons, just ask.
http://www.windfuels.com
We had high hopes and good initial lab results, good simulation results, etc… but withered for lack of funding. When the price of oil crashed, interest crashed with it… and a process that could compete with ~$50/bbl oil was no longer something that people were willing to pour money into a 6-year+ speculative play while the stock market was booming. I blame the DOE for being institutionally corrupt and incompetent, but I understand the hesitance from the investors.
So we didn’t make it happen (yet, we’ll return)… but someone will. The technology works, the process works, and it will again be market viable.
You have to understand: Just because YOU don’t know something doesn’t mean that the knowledge isn’t known. It is. Sometimes you have to allow other people’s expertise to inform your extremely narrowly defined opinion.
Glenn,
I think I see your problem when it comes to securing funding. I never found arrogant condescension a useful skill when seeking R&D funds.
In fact, contrary to your assumption, for more than 10 years, I’ve been following the various research projects for capturing and turning CO2 into useful products, including the waste-to-fuel technology developed by scientists at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I also followed with interest the progress of Scientists, in Canada, the UK and other places research with similar technology.
(I’ve also helped finance research projects to turn CO2 into stone).
Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the US DOE, but I’ve never witnessed a single substantiated case of corruption !
Corruption is a very harmful accusation for a hopeful applicant to level, since it indicates petulance and a lack of commercial realism casting doubt on the validity of your project and yourself.
Like Sheldon Cooper in the TV series, the potential of research may be obscured by the advocated difficult personality.
You may not think it, but I do believe a vast number of potentially game-changing innovations are being currently researched. It’s not hard to believe that if even a small percentage succeed the future can be very optimistic.
I don’t share the pessimistic Malthusian hand-wringing so characteristic of most environmental activists. I never discount the possibility of radical technological leaps enabling humanity to continue to grow and prosper by our capacity to adapt and develop technologies capable of facing future environmental challenges.
I strongly support all research. Even research that doesn’t lead to commercialization can prove a building block, or at least eliminate dead end projects.
However, economies have priorities and constraints. Not every potential technology is affordable, or practical. The public purse has many demands, each of these demands believes itself to be the most deserving.
The advantages of future technologies are infinite and research should be pursued, but practical realism must be a priority when making policy concerning the immediate future.
Had Bill Nye announced :-
” In the future the World may be Powered with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
I would raise no objection, in fact I would support the possibility. But that’s not his contention! Bill Nye’s contention is a simple promotion for Wind and Solar claiming :-
“We can Power the World with Renewable Energy(Wind And Solar).”
The answer is, ” no we can’t” !