Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: I'm OK, you're excess population Message-ID: <927@ames.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 23:33:08 EST Article-I.D.: ames.927 Posted: Tue Apr 9 23:33:08 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 06:18:42 EST References: <1457@dciem.UUCP> <1476@dciem.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 69 From Martin Taylor (dciem!mmt): >>[me] 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. We agree here. My original point, you will recall, is that our energy situation is far from hopeless and, if solved, would allow much larger populations than currently exist to live on the Earth in comfort. By pointing out *another* alternative to fossil fuels, you seem to me to be helping me to make my case. Not so? >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. I'd guesstimate more like 50 years than 100, but that's beside the point; we can go another 100 years with fission, or with coal, or probably even with oil, though that might be a bit tight. What is most likely is that we'll use a combination of them all, plus better sources gradually taking the burden off fossil fuels and fission. >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. Some types of solar are already engineering realities (solar heating), as is geothermal energy (used in California and Iceland, and probably elsewhere). Geopressure zones could provide enormous quantities of natural gas, a substance we're already equipped to transport and use. We have a number of energy alternatives in the short term, and while they're not as attractive as the longer term possibilities, they'll give us the time we need to make those better possibilities into realities. I agree that it would be good if we were pursuing alternate energy sources with more vigor, so that they could come on-line sooner. I even agree that failing to deal with our energy problems is *potentially* threatening to the survival of our society. My dispute was with the apparent assertion in your original article that the planet was heading for inevitable ecological disaster, and cannot properly support the population it has. If this was not your position, I'll shut up now but, otherwise, I still fail to see what makes you think that civilization is surely on the skids. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry