|
It’s all about being carbon neutral, isn’t it? With the Live World concerts just wrapping up, the next big personal attribute is your carbon footprint. I can just see it now… the next thing we’ll be boasting about at the pub is what our carbon footprint looks like. It’ll be the new defining factor to look out for in a date. Puh-lease!
Whilst I agree that global warming and carbon dioxide emissions are a concern, this approach about everyone reducing their personal impact is a joke. I mean, really. If you want to make a difference, attack the problem at its root, not just attempt to cover it over with planting a few extra trees. That tree is going to take 10-20 years to grow, and by that time our “carbon emissions” are going to be through the roof. Nice thought, but completely pointless.
The only answer is to invest in alternative fuels. Coal sure is cheap, but yes is a tad messy and does attribute to a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. Clean Coal, a favourite of the Greens Party and other hippies, is a completely impractical idea as the technology to perfect it is complex and will likely come after we’ve already exhausted our prime (black) coal deposits. Wind power, whilst nice, just doesn’t generate enough energy. Solar power is useless in the current form of photovoltaics, but has some potential, such as the Solar Tower project.
What I don’t get is why everyone is overlooking nuclear power, a perfectly viable and clean form of energy, releasing only steam into the atmosphere. And talking about nuclear waste, if people actually realised how little nuclear waste is really generated by an active power station, they wouldn’t be so quick to judge. I seem to remember the total amount generated by an 800MW power station is in the order of 100 barrels a year, and technology and safety standards have risen somewhat such that we shouldn’t have to fear the nuclear boogeyman anymore.
But really, it’s not optimal is it. What the world really needs is to finally perfect fusion power. Feed it deuterium / tritium, get helium as a byproduct. Potential power gained if perfected would far surpass any current known form of power generation. Combine this a light high-capacity energy storage device, and all power and ground-based transportation could be run with close to zero carbon dioxide emissions.
Granted, this is expensive… but is it more expensive than the Kyoto treaty or this carbon netural crap, which is progress-inhibitive and just delaying the inevitable anyway? If governments were really serious about this, they would divert their R&D resources into solving this problem. A few thousand scientists and engineers with a big budget could probably knock it over within a decade or so. They’re getting pretty close already.
So my view is… cut it out with “carbon footprint” business, forget these “eco-friendly” gimmicks and stop listening to rock concerts yabber on about “making a difference” whilst sucking down 100kVA of power to run the event. Instead of trying to ease your own conscience by signing a petition, go and learn some nuclear physics, or pay someone else to. The world will be a far better better place.
|