Economics is often called the dismal science because of an
article written by Thomas Carlyle more than 150 years ago.
In it he proposed mockingly to reintroduce slavery to
control labor markets. During modern times, this moniker
proves to be a prophetic choice. Modern economics have,
after all, brought us not only free markets and
unimaginable monetary rewards for the few chosen ones, but
have also produced the great depression of 1931, the world
financial crisis of 2008, and 12 recessions in the
intervening 75 years.
Just imagine a similar performance record for airplanes,
skyscrapers, nuclear power plants, and bridges!
The financial damages inflicted by systemic deficiencies in
our economic infrastructure are unbearable and must not be
tolerated any longer. These deficiencies are manmade and
are caused by regularly failing institutions. Yet, we not
only continue to support these institutions, but bail them
out without conditional provisions that prevent them from
paying irrational bonuses to their management and using the
bailout funding for starting the engineering of the next
recession, depression, or financial crisis. Crises are the
occasions when the chosen cash in.
Obama has committed himself to bring change to our country.
He has promised to address the lingering energy crisis
during his presidency. It now appears that he too is
following the battle cry of the unholy alliance between
industry and environmental groups and is demanding the
conservation of energy to save the planet. This demand is
not based on scientific facts but on belief in dismal
science. It also will waste billions of dollars spent for
doomed-to-fail conservation efforts.
Energy conservation and Cap and Trade concepts cannot save
our planet from overheating, cannot slow sea level rise,
cannot prevent climate changes, and cannot save animal and
plant species from extinction. However, they will
significantly increase profits of energy companies and will
assure that energy costs will continue their only
occasionally interrupted rise into the sky.
In 1997, a comparably small number of industrialized
countries in Europe and across the world signed the Kyoto
Protocol. The signatories to this agreement committed
themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas discharges and
especially their carbon dioxide emissions in future years.
Virtually all of these emissions are produced by fossil
fuel combustion.
In the years following, the USA, China, India, and many
other countries refused to sign because of the glaring
deficiencies of the Kyoto provisions. These dissenting
countries proved to be right.
The signors of the Kyoto agreements were absolutely correct
on one count; the continuation of fossil fuel based carbon
dioxide emissions will destroy our Earth. Unfortunately,
their understanding of energy science was flawed. They
made the same mistake our economists continue to make.
Continuing with deficit spending and increasing leverage of
financial institutions forever cannot save national
economies and prevent financial crises. Similarly,
continuing the discharge of fossil fuel emissions forever
cannot stop global warming and related damages.
We must face reality. Conservation can at best slow
atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide. It cannot halt
global overheating. The Obama administration will hopefully
have at least one qualified, influential scientist, who can
debunk the prevailing beliefs in conservation and carbon
taxation. Global overheating can only be stopped by ending
all fossil fuel combustion permanently!
What are the available options? Fossil fuel reserves with
the exception of petroleum are still plentiful. However,
petroleum is getting scarce, consumption of petroleum is
accelerating, and petroleum reserves will run out during
the next fifty to seventy years. As long as we burn
petroleum products we add to accumulated carbon dioxide in
our atmosphere. Burning all our remaining petroleum
reserves will double or triple past global warming.
Fortunately, we have access to two energy sources that can
provide plentiful, affordable, emission-free energy for
centuries. These energy resources are sun radiation and
nuclear fuels. Sun energy does not produce any pollutants
or wastes. Sun energy is inexhaustible. Nuclear fuels
will last at least for another century, are still
inexpensive, but produce radioactive waste. This waste
must and can be managed. There is one unmatched advantage
to these two energies; they will stabilize atmospheric
carbon dioxide emissions and will end global warming.
There is one major drawback to these energy sources, too.
Both energies must be converted into energy forms that
world economies are accustomed to use. Nuclear fuel can be
converted into electricity. Sun energy can be converted
into electricity and into irreplaceable liquid fuels.
Why are we not installing facilities for converting these
savior energies and stop burning fossil fuels?
The reasons are economical, political, financial, and
cultural. A few explanations may be helpful.
Installing a nuclear power plant is expensive and may last
ten years. Additionally, political and cultural forces in
society are trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
technologies.
Conversion of sun energy into electricity is technically
not as far advanced as nuclear energy conversion. Well
managed efforts for closing technology gaps can produce
needed results in less than a decade. Developmental
technologies like wind power conversion and direct
conversion of sun energy into electricity can be installed
immediately. Electricity produced with commercially
available conversion equipment will at first be
considerably more expensive than presently generated
electricity. A reasonably large number of facilities must
be subsidized initially to further advance technologies and
reduce equipment costs. Continuing installation activities
will also encourage development and demonstration of energy
storage.
Converting sun energy into liquid fuels is still in its
infancy. Only proper management and funding can develop
needed technologies in ten to fifteen years. Initial
evaluations indicate that liquid fuels converted from sun
energy can be produced for about fifty dollars per barrel.
Why has this technology not been developed earlier? This
question is difficult to answer. The question falls into
the same dismal category as inquiries into the causes for
the periodic recurrence of depressions and financial crises.
Answers are by definition irrational.
----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hemsath recently published the book: CLIMATE CHANGE -
GOLD RUSH OR DISASTER? For 50 years he has worked as
scientist, process engineer, Corporate Vice President of
R&D, Company President, CEO, and Inventor. He holds more
than 60 US Patents. He is working on a new book: "THE
SOLUTION FOR ENDING GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Go
to http://www.thermalexpert.com
EasyPublish this article: http://submityourarticle.com/articles/easypublish.php?art_id=47274
0 comments
Post a Comment