 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Emilio Canovai
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 10 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 24
Country: Netherlands
|
Balance between Development and Pollution
February 19, 2004 - 08:42 AM
|
|
Since the 18th century, Europe has gone through rapid economic growth. However this led to major pollution problems that affect us today. It is now extremely hard to change our economy as it has been geared over the years to privitazation of transport(eg cars) and to cheap energy sources(eg coal and oil). The question is therefore, how can we continue to develop without damaging the environment even more? The awnser is small but constant reaching of small goals over a long period of time. At this point science is not yet capable of providing effecient alternate energy sources and so we have to start by increasing effeciency and making long term plans.
What are your opinions and solution?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jay
Joined: May 10, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Re: Balance between Development and Pollution
May 10, 2004 - 07:55 AM
|
|
hemp will solve all the worlds problems
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ray Ovac
Joined: May 12, 2004
Posts: 255 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Re: Balance between Development and Pollution
July 8, 2004 - 07:30 AM
|
|
Originally posted by emilio16
Since the 18th century, Europe has gone through rapid economic growth. However this led to major pollution problems that affect us today. It is now extremely hard to change our economy as it has been geared over the years to privitazation of transport(eg cars) and to cheap energy sources(eg coal and oil). The question is therefore, how can we continue to develop without damaging the environment even more? The awnser is small but constant reaching of small goals over a long period of time. At this point science is not yet capable of providing effecient alternate energy sources and so we have to start by increasing effeciency and making long term plans.
What are your opinions and solution?
Simply: development and environmental sustainability are not inconsistent.
A myriad of both renewable and highly efficient energy generation technologies are now available. From a lifecycle cost perspective, many renewables are equal to that of fossil fuels. Certain CHP (Combined Heat and Power, or cogeneration) technologies (such as fuel cells, gas turbines, etc) which use traditional fossil fuels easily increase the available power taken from these sources...thus both reducing pollution and increasing efficiency.
Further, getting outside of the energy issue, there are many new building and infrastrcuture development methods that are legitimately "green", and a large movement promoting such methods has begun to gain traction.
In short, renewing current infrastructure and even accelerating additional development can be not only a "no net increase" in pollution proposition but one that (especially in the context of renewal) one that actually creates a world where there is less pollution with even more people, buildings, transportation, and overall energy use (as opposed to supply).
I find this to be a fasinating subject and I am amazed that more young people on TIG are not interrested. If there is one way that we can impact the world *today* it is by sustainable development. Reducing the use of fossil fuels not only reduces pollution and protects resources, but it also helps to improve the productivity of all nations and mitigate a number of the conflicts in the world today. As the #1 cash commodity, energy drives both commerce and conflict. We can do something about this right now by promoting better methods and helping to encourage others to understand the options that are available.
Great topic! Keep up the discussion!
God Bless!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Lack of Interest
July 9, 2004 - 08:19 AM
|
|
Perhaps young folks are not so interested in energy as they think of it as an "old industry" as opposed to biotech or computers. Certainly figuring out how to supply the world's growing energy needs without overpollution is one of the big challenges.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
kostas
Joined: Jul 5, 2004
Posts: 5 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: Greece
|
Re: Balance between Development and Pollution
July 11, 2004 - 07:29 AM
|
|
Rayovac, I could not agree more with you for the existence of alternative sources, I as well believe that there are many other ways to produce energy rather than combustion of fossil fuels (which will come in an end in any time). There are others parameters that do not allow the further development of and use of alternative energy sources, they might be econimical issues from multinational companies or even it can also get down to us as individuals are we willing to sacrifice some of our luxuries for a more sustainable development?
Sustainability is a new definition to me - I firstly came across sustainability about 5 years ago-, but I believe that since then significant job has been done in order to have a more sustainable society not only in matters of pollution but in economy is well (may seem a bit controversial).
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
rafre
Joined: Sep 6, 2004
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Germany
|
Re: Balance between Development and Pollution
September 18, 2004 - 07:24 AM
|
|
It is not true that fossil energy sources are indeed cheaper than renewables. Just think about the efforts on how to handle pollution caused by fossils or the economic costs of global climate change!
These issues are not included into the energy price. It is up to politics to internalize those external costs. In order to give renewables the importains they should have.
Furthermore I don't believe that hemp is the answer to all our needs. ;o) Biofuels (as well as biogas- and mass, for that matter) will play an important role in the enrgy shift. however, only a mix of all renewable energy sources can make us independent from fossil and nuclear.
I also cannot agree that young people are not interested in the issue of energy supply:
Just before the renewables2004-conference held in Bonn, Germany early in June there were several youth conferences regarding this issue. For example the Youth Alliance for Future Energy organized the Youth Energy Summitt: 150 people from 17 countries attened. Further details you can find under www.yes2004.de.
Another example is the Youth Employment Summitt. One of there main focuses are renewables. (www.yesweb.de)
Many young people went to the streets to protest against the Iraq war: no blood for oil!
There are many issues connected with energy supply: poverty reduction, education...
So young people either are intrested in this toppic or they didnt find out yet theat they are!
I also would like to remind you that in many cases it also lies in your hands to promote renewable energy. All across Europe (and in many other countries) there is a liberized electric energy maked. You can decide for yourself if you want to buy from a coal field in Britain, a nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic or from a decentalized power station with renewable energy. THE DECISION IS YOURS!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Subsidies and Transition Costs
September 18, 2004 - 10:44 AM
|
|
Certainly glad to hear more young people are interested in energy issues. There are lots of issues and challenges aout there in energy.
Even if oil were not the dominant fuel, the major powers (US, Russia, China, etc) would still have large armies. Certainly the war in Iraq would not be fought if there was no oil, but the added costs are incremental. Not sure if that can count as a subsidy. Of course spending on YOUR energy source is a public investment, spending on SOMEONE else's energy source is a subsidy. ;-)
In addition, there are large transition costs to convert from fossil fuels to technologies that do not generate power 24 hrs/day (extra equipment for electricity storage, gird changes, etc). Many economists claim that these transition costs are lower than the adjustment costs for global climate change.
Personally, I think that they are not considering the unequal consequences that global climate change will create. Nonetheless, the treatment of subsidies and transition costs will continue to be a major source of contention.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
rafre
Joined: Sep 6, 2004
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Germany
|
Re: Balance between Development and Pollution
September 19, 2004 - 10:17 AM
|
|
hi rsmarg, you bring up the issue of transition costs. certainly an issue what has to be considerd and what often is used as an argument against renerwables.
i would like to draw your attention to developing countries. in many cases there is no grid. the costs of installing one would be imensly higher than build renewable island-systems. since electric energy is important for industry it is a simple way of satisfying a basic need for economic growth in developing countries.
it is important that on the way to further electrification of rural areas off-grid countries are pushing renewables in order to come closer to the aims of sustainable development (equal living standards all over the world and for futur generations).
china is forgeing ahead and as the lively discusions during the renewables2004-conference showed: developing countries are very well aware of their responsiblity here.
now you can say: the actual problem is within the indusrialized world. i believe that hte biggest problems here are governments usually only plan are far as to the next election and that the lobby for nuclear and fossil is simply to strong. :-(
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Numbers and Lobbies
September 20, 2004 - 08:13 AM
|
|
Rafre -
You bring up a good point that renewables are great in places like rural China or India. The big challenge for renewables in the future is to supply the HUGE amounts of power these countries will need in the next few decades. For example, if China were to use 25% of the current US per capita electric capacity they would need to add the equivalent of the US electric supply (~800,000 MW). And this does not include population growth. A tall order even for the fossil plants. I used 25% since Amory Lovins always claims the US could operate on 75% less electricity.
As far as lobbies, I do not consider the nuclear lobby in the US that powerful as no new plants have been ordered since the 1970's. I suspect the same is true in Germany as they did not stop the phaseout law from passing. Both solar and nuclear are currently too expensive versus liquified natural gas (LNG). LNG appears to be the next energy juggernaut. ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
rafre
Joined: Sep 6, 2004
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Germany
|
why not doing the "real" thing
September 25, 2004 - 06:32 AM
|
|
rsmarg,
i am still convinced that there shouldnt be any further delay of the shift to renewables!
now to the nuclear-lobby: i am well convinced that there is a very strong lobby for nuclear in france for example. and also if you look at the passout in germany, u will see that there is a hugh diffrence between the first planns and the actual law ;-)
anyway, i would like to raise the question if all of u agree that nuclear is bad? afterall it doesnt cause any co2 emission.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
A lot of MW
September 26, 2004 - 09:28 AM
|
|
While I agree that greater attention should paid to renewables, they should be used where there is a good niche. Trying to use solar panels to supply thousands of MW 24 hr/day is not such a hot idea. To power Asian countries or the west will require thousands of MW in the next few decades even with efficiency improvements.
Nuclear too is a niche source of energy. New nuclear reactors are being built in China, Korea, and Finland. These countries have special situations (either large growth rates or energy supply issues) that have made new nuclear plants workable.
My opinion on nuclear is that it has a bad rap (I am still waiting for a mass movement against coal which kills more per MWhr). However nuclear has too high of capital costs versus fossil plants.
Maybe energy sources should be matched to their best fits rather than trying to fit to preconceived notion on what the "best" energy source is. Where solar works, that's great, where nuclear works, that's fine too. Maybe there is even a place for a little coal (well, not in my backyard...). ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Two LNG Articles
September 27, 2004 - 11:59 AM
|
|
As background, I have links to two LNG articles. The first is more the establishment opinion and the second is a contrarian view.
http://www.cera.com/news/details/1,2318,5918,00.html
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=828
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
