@NaomiAKlein @TheGreenParty #Occupy Climate change elephant intheroom.

All the protest in the World, whether quiet and reasoned, or violent and strident won’t see Capitalist’s giving up fossil fuels.
These are people who are motivated by profit.
If Alternative Energy sources gave bigger profits, they’d drop fossil fuels fast.
Artificial incentives, such as subsidising green resources, will bring them to the trough but, long term, fossil fuels win out.
They win out because they (include nuclear) can be stockpiled.
Alternatives depend on local conditions.
If you want Capitalists to go for them, you have to either find a means of storing such energy, or stop it being a locally based resource.
First option is storage.
A null-balance carbon option is to rely on photosynthesis to produce fuel (wood, starch, methane etc.) for which technologies exist. The only problem is that it deprives us of food resources (human fuel).
Other options are solar, wind and wave, for which technology exists but they can only be used to supplement demand and it is inconvenient. Not inconvenient in the sense of marring scenery (the main complaint) but in terms of not being available when you need it. Good King Wenceslas would have frozen to death, if there had been no wood to burn.
Even in the desert, it’s freezing cold at night, because there is no Solar energy at night.
Tidal energy is reliable but needs lagoons to even out demand (a form of storage), which, if estuarial,, soon fill with silt, killing estuary life.
These four all supply electrical energy and that’s a problem.
This is  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
It stores energy, while we sleep, to be used when we’re awake but it wastes a third every cycle.
Pumped storage facilities, like this one, depend on terrain and are expensive.
There is research to use the electricity to produce Hydrogen etc. in situ, so it can be used as a localised resource but it’s not very advanced and doesn’t offer big cash returns.
There’s Geothermal energy, which Iceland relies on but you have to be living on a volcano, or worse a caldera and it still has to be distributed.
This leads to the second option. De-localise the energy.
Historically, every city had its own producer of electrical power, with obvious problems of capacity, reliability and flexibility.
When the UK nationalised (capitalists hate that word) Electrical Power Supply, they were able to build and take advantage of a National Grid.
If one power station goes down, customer’s don’t notice too much and part of the problem of peak hour demand could be solved by connecting National grids. E.g. we have an hour’s difference in demand with the French, so at their morning rush hour, we sell them electricity and then buy it back an hour later.
This is a cheap international solution, which should appeal to Capitalists and Green Activists and Climate Change warriors.
The wind, wave, solar etc. supply of energy is constant, when considered globally and can offer a viable alternative to the more reliable fossil and nuclear options.
Because there is no pollution to clean up, they are cheaper, long term and grow more attractive as more population’s object to being dumping grounds.
All the Capitalists have to provide are cables and maintenance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: