For those concerned about finite resources and maintaining a liveable planet, innovation means finding entirely new, clean sources of energy.
I don't agree with the thesis that biofuels could do this, but that's is not my point. My point is that the Republicans don't have a good enough answer for these concerns, regardless of whether or not that you agree that it is a concern.
For instance, you can reduce the use of carbon dioxide and achieve lower prices at the same time. The biofuel argument fails on that economic score, but it may succeed on another score if the environmentalists are successful in promoting their flawed idea of finite resources.
The solution here for both scores could be thorium fuel cycle as advocated by Kirk Sorensen. Nuclear energy has become a dirty word, but it is something for the future, and the future would not be far off, and would not entail a large expenditure of cash in order to realize its potential.
The thorium fuel cycle creates much less waste than the uranium fuel cycle and uses far fewer resources than even biofuels. It is virtually inexhaustible, as there are thousands of years worth of supplies. It would leave a small environmental footprint, as it is quite concentrated. Biofuels would take up too much of a truly finite resource--- land. Furthermore, thorium fuel cycle reactors could make electricity even cheaper than fossil fuels, all without carbon dioxide.
It makes so much sense on both scores that, as the they saying goes, it is the main reason it is not being done.
The article does make a legitimate point. Innovation has become a dirty word. But I thank Romney for that. Thanks for his failure to see innovation as a hopeful thing, as opposed to a thing that should be ridiculed, Obama could take the high ground, while leaving us high and dry on energy. Obama's Solyndra economy will fail and we will be left holding the bag.
No comments:
Post a Comment