Originally Posted by
David Weaver
I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive.
David - I respect your pragmatism. It's a very dominant attribute in your writing. Kudos for thoughtful posts.
Given our options, it seems obvious that there is no single source that can replace fossil fuels. Our current energy demands are met by coal, nuclear, hydro and oil, so the idea that we have a monolithic energy supply is false. We are adding solar, geothermal and wind to the supply chain. The established interests are less than enthusiastic about allowing these technologies onto the playing field.
I do think at some point we will need our version of the Apollo program when it comes to creating a sustainable energy strategy. Will we have the courage, conviction and stamina to see it through, or will we fall prey to the vested interests who will no doubt tell us that the conversion is dangerous, unfair and not good for us?
We are on a collision course, and while it may occur some time down the line, I would hope we would soon remember the forward thinking attitudes of those that delivered to us the advances of our society. They recognized the collective value of moving the ball even though the return on investment may take some time, perhaps not even to be realized in their lifetime.
This is a matter to large to dismiss as not economically viable or unfair to the current producers. We need to find ways to make it economically viable, because the current cost is bending upwards and there is no end in sight. Eventually our current sources will be too expensive for most. Then what?
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.