Saturday's Alternative Energy Options Growing post on Winds of Change.NET discussed the growth of alternative energy companies and technologies, and what a future mixed-energy infrastructure might look like. While these alternative technologies are valuable, they won't shift our dependence away from fossil fuels any time soon. They won't even stop the growth of nuclear power, which is on something of a comeback trail world-wide. As the Christian Science Monitor recently noted (note to non-Americans: not what you think, and a very respected paper):
"On the 50th anniversary of the birth of nuclear power, analysts say it will be the example of fresh nuclear success in Asia - where 18 of 27 new plants worldwide are being built - that may determine the future of atomic power in the West." (Hat Tip: FutureBrief)
Here's the full CSM article. These nuclear power trends in China and India are definitely worth your attention, and the article's 1999 map of North Korea's nuclear facilities is worth the visit all by itself.
Here in Canada, meanwhile, Ontario's recent report on restructuring our power industry shows both of these trends in action: encouragement of alternative and distributed energy sources, coupled with expansion of the nuclear power option.
Has anyone started seriously considering
the potential of methane hydrate from
the sea bottom? It is stable I think
below 300 meters and I understand the
deposits are estimated to be about
twice that of all oil, natural gas and
coal deposits combined.
Dan,
Yes, people are researching methods for producing hydrates. Research wells have been drilled to test hydrate properties and different methods for production but the technology is still developing at this point.
I’m not sure how everyone sees this but given the article on nuclear power and availability I think we can safely say the genie is out of the bottle and the cork will not be returning anytime soon.
As the article suggests it’s not the benefits that everyone should be worried about as much as it is the potential devastation regardless of benefit or destructive use. (Maybe I’m reading it wrong.) Which again drives the questions. Who should and should not have nuclear technology? Are the benefits worth the risk? What should we do on a preemptive or preventative basis?
The article might lead us to believe we as a world are quickly reaching the point where this will be a global effort of reconciliation. I’m sure CSM doesn’t want to offer the current circumstances as doom and gloom. (Or do they?)
Personally I find nuclear technology a viable solution. I see the benefits greater than the risk and you can put a plant in my backyard if you like. The point however of who should and should not have nuclear power is well taken. Yet it’s hard to deny anyone the potential benefit. As is the case of terrorism we can all choose to retaliate or we can all choose to ignore it and let it take its’ course.
Regrettably I have no answer other than I will fight to maintain my freedom and liberty no matter the cost. To quote the words of Rodney King “Can’t we just all get along?” Unfortunately I don’t believe the world is ready for that yet. Difficult decisions need to be made.