The Debate over Energy Security
Are we secure enough to continue burning the carbon fuels at the current rate? Is there a viable alternative or are we just kidding ourselves just to avoid the judgement call of our next generation for being a selfish wasteful generation.
Follow the debate below and contribute to the conversation.
Now is the time to milk those creative juices waiting to gush out!
with regards
Dr B
Globalbelai4u.blogspot.com
Globalbelai@yahoo.com
Dear reader,
Now we are cooking with gas, at least as far as our energy technology debate is concerned. Not only have our two speakers put forward sharp opening remarks, but we have also received many dozens of thoughtful comments from readers.
The proposition
"This house believes that we can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations."
Moderator’s comments
Thus far, the debate has been a closely fought contest, with commentators fired up on both sides. Solarenergy4all, for instance, advocates the use of economic incentives as a way to boost renewable energy. Meanwhile, Loucus points out the dangers of lavishing subsidies on trendy energy technologies and alternative fuels, observing that biofuels can be a “double-edged sword”.
Interestingly, Joseph Romm, speaking in favour of the motion, parts company with those in the climate crisis camp, including Al Gore, who advocate a “Manhattan Project” or “moonshot” approach. He argues it would be better to get existing clean technologies into the hands of more consumers quickly: “If you want deployment of the technology by 2040, we are mostly stuck with what we have today or very soon will have.”
Peter Meisen, however, argues that the climate challenge is so daunting it requires innovation breakthroughs in addition to the expansion of energy efficiency and other ready measures. This would create “entirely new business opportunities” by emerging “clean tech” sectors such as IGCC gas turbines, hybrid plug-in cars, LED lighting and solar photovoltaics, he says.
The Pro side currently holds a slim advantage. But much can happen between now and the closing arguments, so be sure to get in your comments now—and vote.
Speaker comments
Pro: Joseph J. Romm
“Clean energy technologies have a steadily declining cost curve, whereby greater volume leads to lower cost. So speeding up the deployment of new technologies is more important than generating new ones. Plus, the more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes—which is why the last thing most utilities want to do is push strategies that save energy. We need to do what California did decades ago—adopt regulations that untie utility company profits from how much electricity they sell.”
Con: Peter Meisen
“A new priority order is needed. Conservation first. Energy efficiency next. Then new power generation. Last in line are the fossil fuels and nuclear. And we need a globally interconnected electric grid. Unique to electricity are the peaks and valleys of daily and seasonal demand. A unified grid allows utilities to level the load curve, maximising the resources of the entire power pool. These high-voltage grids currently link half the world. With co-operative resolve, we can complete the job in two decades.”
Debate schedule
August 22nd – Rebuttals. Share your comments on the issues so far, and vote
August 25th – Guest speaker, Makito Takami, Chief Representative of Washington, DC Office, NEDO, posts
August 26th – Guest speaker Mujid S. Kazimi, Director, MIT’s Centre for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, posts
August 27th – Closing arguments by the speakers. Post your final comments and vote for your winner
August 29th – Debate winner announced
Weigh up the rebuttals, have your say and vote now on Economist.com—and discuss the issues with friends via our Facebook page.
Let battle commence. Join the debate now.
Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran
Debate Moderator
Correspondent
The Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment