A few more words on solar and wind (and nuclear)

*UPDATE: I just saw this item regarding a breakthrough in solar storage using splitting water and fuel cells*

Round two!

I've double-indented his words and single-indented mine:

1. The problem with solar power is this thing called "night."

2. The problem with wind power is this thing called "no wind blowing today."

The problem with your two statements is this thing called "reading comprehension"...

I already pointed out, all by myself, that:

The particular barriers applying to solar and wind are storage and efficiency, and there are good solutions out there for both involving either: 1) compressed air storage of energy, or 2) pumping water uphill.

That is to say that there are already obvious and easy solutions to the issues of storage -- given that there is much more energy available than we need to harness, all we have to do is store it when there's extra and transmit it when it's needed.

I anticipate being hit with a straw man argument about being a global warmer denier, but I am not one of those people.

I don't do logical fallacies...at least not on purpose.

What I will say is that most of these apocalyptic scenarios are overblown, and that change in energy technology will come more rapidly and more unexpectedly than you realize.

Perhaps they are, and perhaps it will. Here is a good argument to consider.

But to embrace Gore's stupidity will only hamper the solution to the problem by killing our economy.

First, environmentalism is not a cult of personality. It reminds me of how creationists use the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution because it makes it an ideology (-ism) and makes it all about Darwin at the same time. Second, there are lots of really smart people out there who have looked at this and realize that spending $700B a year on foreign oil is killing our economy and that by taxing oil and giving tax incentives to move to renewables, we'll be relying on markets to use the now-cheaper energy sources (subsidized) and innovate. Also, the infrastructure, once built, is massively cheaper than oil. It's the initial investment that's expensive.

Free market innovation is the way to go not tyrannical dictates and embracing dubious technologies.

I don't see anyone saying that Uncle Sam should run factories to produce solar panels or windmills. We do argue that Uncle Sam ought to adjust tax rates on carbon-based fuels and offer tax incentives on non-carbon sources. It's about taxation and monetary policy. As of right now, Exxon has no incentive to invest in alternatives, so they invest a dismal 1% of their profits in alternative energy. (source)

I think we have the technology now to end most fossil fuel consumption, and it is called nuclear energy.

I'm actually in agreement with you that nuclear is a necessary part of the energy package that solves both the climate change and the foreign oil problems we currently face. MIT did a great study a while back. However, the issue of long-term storage of high-level waste has never been satisfactorily dealt with, although there are some promises in recycling the waste material using technology developed by a professor I worked with at UF (details).

Unfortunately, environmentalists have hamstrung this industry with their stupidity. But cheap electricity would be a boon to electric cars and mass transit. I think nuclear power would provide this if the regulatory hurdles could be eliminated.

On a general note, Charlie, I think we can have a productive and fruitful dialog, but it would be nice if you would refrain from disparaging all environmentalists as "stupid"...and as I said, I'm in agreement with you that nuclear power should be pushed more as a transition. In the long term, one downside is that Uranium is just like fossil fuels -- a finite resource.

In the short term, we have good reserves of Uranium, as do our friends, Australia and Canada. It has the potential to be cheaper than even coal, and already provides around 20% of US electricity. Both Barack and McCain promise to work to include nucelar in their energy proposals, although Barack doesn't support giving subsidies to them as McCain does. (more)

I'm all for clean water and clean air, but I'm not going to deify the planet or damn capitalism along the way.

I don't understand why it's socialistic to strategically place the long-term good of our economy and national security above short-term interests...?

The modern environmental movement bears little relation to the conservation movements of the past but are simply the last refuge of Marxists who saw a new way to castigate the free market by turning from Red to Green.

Do you have any evidence that there is a conspiracy amongst Communists in the USA to move us to solar and wind and other renewables?

On a sidenote, I think the Tesla Roadster is a great car, and I love that company. I think the future belongs to capitalist innovators like those behind Tesla.

The future belongs to capitalists, that's for sure.

PS: Republicans blocked a solar and wind tax credit for the fourth time this summer. They set a record for the number of filibusters during the first year of a two-year session. To repeat: they've filibustered more in one year than any Congress before filibustered in two.

This dialog was more respectful on his part, I think.