Breaking the Logjam on Global Warming

Al Gore has challenged the United States to obtain all of its electrical energy from renewable and carbon-free sources within ten years. That challenge is as welcome as it is unusual among prominent politicians. However Gore fails to grapple with the obstacles that stand in the way of our avoiding drastic global warming while at the same time continuing to experience economic growth.

The brutal fact is that the cost-effective technologies necessary to replace fossil fuels in the production of electricity do not yet exist. A recent issue of The Economist magazine details the fact that the technologies associated with wind power, solar power, bio-fuels, geo-power and the capturing and storing of carbon dioxide emissions have not advanced sufficiently to make them cost-competitive with coal, petroleum and natural gas.

Among the alternatives, nuclear power comes closest to representing a cost effective option. However continuing concerns about the safety of nuclear plants and the unresolved problem of nuclear waste storage and disposal plague the industry. In addition, the prohibitive cost of constructing a nuclear facility has limited the industry's attractiveness to private investors. In combination these factors explain why nuclear energy today supplies only about 16 percent of world energy production.

Under these circumstances, the argument that the government should fund research in the development of green energy is very strong. Almost certainly, the benefits resulting from such investments will exceed their costs. Success will mitigate global climate change, enhance United States national security and benefit the economy.

In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the petroleum crises of the 1970's the United States government did dramatically increase its funding for research and development in renewable energy. The budget for this ballooned in constant dollars from about $34 million in 1974 to almost $1.5 billion in 1980. However 1980 marked the high water market in this regard. Funding declined dramatically in the 1980's and stayed essentially flat thereafter. The government has not sustained the kind of financial commitment that is required for renewable energy technology to become a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

This pattern of stagnation was not dictated by voter hostility toward government-supported research and development. Indeed, polling data make clear that Americans strongly favor investment in new energy technologies. But public pressure was not sufficient to offset a serious structural flaw in American politics, the disproportionate power of big campaign contributors.

Since 1990, individuals associated with the oil and gas industries have contributed $220.4 million to politicians running for office. This contrasts with the comparatively paltry sum of $3.4 million provided by people connected to alternative energy production and services firms. The simple fact is that the advocates of alternative energy sources have not possessed the clout to sustain Congress' investment in renewables. In our "play to pay system" the start-up firms and innovators committed to clean energy have been outsiders looking in. Their ability to influence legislation has been correspondingly limited.

It is unrealistic to think that start-up firms and fledging industrial innovators can match the campaign contributions made by the big petroleum interests. We need a more democratic political system if we are going to be able to move on to a fossil fuel-free future. Such a future therefore requires that advocates of clean energy and clean election join in a firm coalition in support of each other's goals. Such a collaboration will strengthen each side and could result in the kind of movement necessary to achieve both a democratic and environmentally friendly society. Indeed, our future rests on our ability to create such a movement.

Comments

[Overtone]

There are revolutionary energy alternatives that can rapidly go into production worldwide. They are little known as they reflect new, not yet generally accepted, science.

Nobel physicist Werner Heisenberg once said: “We could utilize magnetism as an energy source”.

A self-powered magnetic device was built by Wesley Gary in 1874 and shown to Harvard and MIT professors.

Hans Coler, a German inventor, demonstrated a working 6 Kilowatt, solid-state, magnetic "space energy receiver” in 1937. At the time, there was no comprehension as to the source of the energy. Coler wrote: “These fundamental researches…have made the first real and large breach in the citadel of present scientific belief.”

A recent U.S. Patent, No. 7,379,286, is entitled: Quantum Vacuum Energy Extraction. It provides a comprehensive discussion of the Zero Point Field. The Abstract states: “A system is disclosed for converting energy from the electromagnetic quantum vacuum available at any point in the universe to usable energy in the form of heat, electricity, mechanical energy or other forms of power. …This process is also consistent with the conservation of energy. …The disclosed devices are scalable in size and energy output for applications ranging from replacements for small batteries to power plant sized generators of electricit­y.”

Several firms in a number of countries are working on devices that utilize this abundant, renewable, fuel-free source of energy. They can rapidly supersede fossil and nuclear fuels.

Ours is one of them.

Mark Goldes, Chairman, Magnetic Power Inc.

[noneIn2008]

Hang on to your article as the world continues to cool. Maybe we had better spend a little more time on more fuels and more food to prepare for the oncoming cooling. Shortage of food does not make for peaceful populations.

[MGhamma]

nonein2008, how do you know that the world will continue to cool? Concidering that we've experienced cooling periods of 5 + years duration over the last 150 years, and yet the overall temperature trend over that time has been up, it seems that your predictions of problimatic global cooling are premature in the extreme, and are based on your emotional need to pretend that somehow you're smarter than the climate experts, you know, the trained scientists. You're sounding more and more like a know-it-all teenager. You think that you know everything, because you actually don't know anything. LOL!

[HeevenSteven]

"The Economist magazine details the fact......­." that the technologies associated with wind power, solar power, bio-fuels, geo-power and the capturing and storing of carbon dioxide emissions have not advanced sufficiently to make them cost-competitive with coal, petroleum and natural gas."

I look this up in the economist; but I can't believe that they considered the externalized cost of fossil fuels. The economist isn't exactly the most non-partisan objective analyst; and it's all perfectly worthless if you don't compare the opportunity cost of doing nothing. That cost, of course, can't be know for certain, but an even moderately worst case scenario ain't pretty. What will it cost us if all the worlds coastal cities are under water?

As to our political system, vote the bums out would work as well.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Hey Brother HeevenSteven, Look what I found over on "Edge" Enjoy:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN
By Jonathan Haidt
Others:
Daniel Everett, Howard Gardner, Michael Shermer, Scott Atran, James Fowler, Alison Gopnik, Sam Harris, James O'Donnell

PS I see you have been hammering them in your comments, Good on ya !

[HeevenSteven]

Hey Thanks brother! I'll read this tonite. I'm just finishing Christine Kenneally's Book "The First Word. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-kenneally

[Botitas]

Who on Earth might have been president in the 1980s and kept to a minimum the research on viable fuel alternatives?

[Wilburrr]

(1) There is no logjam on global warming. Global warming is plodding along quite well.
"Faster than expected," actually.

(2) The solar panels that I put on my roof lower my local utility companies need to produce high peak electricity from natural gas and oil. This is current technology reducing the demand on fossil fuels. Wind, geothermal, and other solar technologies also contribute at other locations right now.

(3) Not only is a new system needed to fund politics, regulations are also needed to prevent these same oil companies from paying shills to contaminate scientific studies.