Ok I'll break this down. I will assume that energy availability being the chief determinant in quality of life is not in dispute.
As stated in other threads there are approximately 1.3 billion people who have no electricity at all. If we are to raise their standard of living to 1st world levels reducing overall energy production and consumption is a non starter. If anything we must increase it dramatically.
The question thus becomes how to do this.
Wind is too unreliable and Solar has issues with density and storage. Barring a major technological breakthrough in the form of room-temperature super-conductors or hyper-efficient batteries neither is up to the task of replacing our existing electrical sources. Sure you can put some panels on your roof and use them to charge your cell phone, but there's simply no way to run something as energy intensive as a MRI Machine or Desalinization Plant on solar alone.
Of the stuff we already know how to build that leaves coal, Oil/Gas, Hydro-electric, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear Fission.
Coal is off limits for obvious reasons.
Converting coal plants to oil or natural gas would significantly reduce CO2 emissions but this option has been taken off the table by the whole "OMG Fracking!" controversy.
Hydro-Electric and Geo-Thermal are, for the most part, up to the job but are location dependent and hated by environmentalists for obvious reasons.
Which leaves nukes, and if given the choice between building nukes and fucking over the poor most people will choose "fuck over the poor" in a heartbeat. NIMBY
Thus we arrive at our current impasse.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/13 23:03 (UTC)As stated in other threads there are approximately 1.3 billion people who have no electricity at all. If we are to raise their standard of living to 1st world levels reducing overall energy production and consumption is a non starter. If anything we must increase it dramatically.
The question thus becomes how to do this.
Wind is too unreliable and Solar has issues with density and storage. Barring a major technological breakthrough in the form of room-temperature super-conductors or hyper-efficient batteries neither is up to the task of replacing our existing electrical sources. Sure you can put some panels on your roof and use them to charge your cell phone, but there's simply no way to run something as energy intensive as a MRI Machine or Desalinization Plant on solar alone.
Of the stuff we already know how to build that leaves coal, Oil/Gas, Hydro-electric, Geo-thermal, and Nuclear Fission.
Coal is off limits for obvious reasons.
Converting coal plants to oil or natural gas would significantly reduce CO2 emissions but this option has been taken off the table by the whole "OMG Fracking!" controversy.
Hydro-Electric and Geo-Thermal are, for the most part, up to the job but are location dependent and hated by environmentalists for obvious reasons.
Which leaves nukes, and if given the choice between building nukes and fucking over the poor most people will choose "fuck over the poor" in a heartbeat. NIMBY
Thus we arrive at our current impasse.