Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: I'm OK, you're excess population Message-ID: <1476@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sat, 23-Mar-85 20:16:03 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1476 Posted: Sat Mar 23 20:16:03 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 01:40:53 EST References: <1457@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Distribution: net Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 39 Summary: > It is true that we cannot fuel our society forever with fossil >fuels, but alternatives are available, and even more alternatives are >likely to be available in the future, as our technology improves. Fusion >energy, whether from the Sun or from fusion reactors (Real Soon Now), >is a virtually inexhaustable energy supply. Other sources are nearly >as promising. > I think you are right in identifying energy supply as the heart >of the problem, but wrong in thinking the present energy problems are >destined to be with us forever. It is somewhat foolhardy to rely on an energy source that hasn't even been shown to be technically feasible, at a time when conventional (non-renewable) sources are declining. There is, indeed, one possible bridging energy source that might cover the gap between what we have and what we may be able to have, but that source is nuclear fission. People irrationally don't like it, and its progress has been dangerously slowed. As an energy source far safer ecologically than coal or oil, one would think that the ecology people would have been loud in its praises. If you look at a graph of the rise and decline of energy sources over the centuries, you will see that it takes about 50 years for an energy source to become significant, another 50 for it to become dominant. Declines take the same kind of time. So, even if someone this year achieved reliable excess energy from fusion, we still need 100 years of energy from other sources before we can get to this essentially inexhaustible source. The same argument applies to other (renewable) possibilities, such as solar, oceanic thermal, geothermal and so forth. The technical feasibility of these has been shown, but not the engineering feasibility. Solar is probably closest, but its a long way from becoming a significant source. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt