Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:12:39 AM
I have to give credit to BBC show Top Gear. Not only is it terribly amusing, but in the series which just made it to the US, they manage to point out that all the industrial waste from making a "green" Prius does more damage than building a Land Rover. And, even better, for pointing out a gasoline powered BMW got better gas mileage than the Prius. (Granted, that mileage was while racing around a track, normal driving mileage may be different.)
It is nice to hear someone pointing out that many "green" solutions are only "green" because we don't see the pollution. For example, the chemical processes and metal refining required for some varieties of solar cells are far more polluting than generating the expected lifetime electrical output using coal. (That may be a bit dated, as I am using data form the 80's, but it was once true.) I always have to chuckle when I hear electricity is "clean", as the coal burning power plants are no more clean than your average auto exhaust, making electric cars just as polluting, the only benefit being that the smug owner no longer sees the pollution he generates.
Well, I have written on this many times, so no more for now. Just wanted to give Top Gear a bit of applause for having the nerve to say it, and to the BBC for allowing them to do it, something I don't see any domestic networks having the nerve to do.
POSTSCRIPT
Actually, I do favor one "green" solution, though one eco-hipsters cringe when hearing. I would prefer we saved our petrochemicals for chemical rather than energy uses, burning them only when necessary. Power can be much more efficiently generated using nuclear plants, and then using that cheap, clean electricity to generate hydrogen for cheap, portable energy. Of course, it would be best to also reprocess our spent nuclear fuel, but thanks to the Carter era stupidity of banning reprocessing, no private companies will do it, unless we created some sort of legal guarantees they would not be once again stripped of billions of dollar sin investments by executive decree.
Then again, who cares what I want? Were I somehow made dictator, I suppose I could impose this solution, but I am a true believer in the free market, and in personal freedom. I will be honest, if I were made dictator, I would definitely sign part of the treasury over to my bank account, but after that, I really would step down. I have no urge to rule people, which is probably why I am a conservative. My ideal solution may be ideal for no one else, so imposing it seems a bit unethical. Instead, I would, after plundering the treasury (I am human, after all), pass laws preventing the return of massive government, and then step aside.
In the area of energy, I would give the market freedom to develop solutions, mostly by removing the many restrictions on every solution. Likely, in a completely free market, given the abundance of coal, we would see a boom in the building of coal plants, along with perhaps a few nuclear plants, especially where water is abundant and coal is scarce. Petrochemicals would likely remain the fuel of choice for the time being, especially while hydrogen technology is still primitive. In other words, except for increased explorations and the construction of new plants now prevented by the NIMBY mindset being given the force of law, things would look pretty much as they do today.
Over time I would expect nuclear plants to grow in popularity as easily exploitable coal veins dry up, and hydrogen, alcohol and other alternative fuels to likewise increase in popularity as gasoline becomes more expensive. Beyond that, I would not dare to predict, not only because the personal preference of millions of people is impossible to predict, but even more so as with years to develop new solutions, I can't begin to imagine what the market might develop as an alternative.
Still, I think the many "green" solutions now being bandied about, be they wind, solar or geothermal, are all absolutely absurd.
POSTSCRIPT II
On a related note, many people have also pointed out that, even when gasoline was pushing $5 per gallon, the additional cost of a hybrid meant that a buyer would break even, despite fuel savings, only if he used the car for something like 20 or 30 years. Now that gasoline is well south of $2, I imagine it would be simply impossible to save enough on fuel to make up for the additional cost of the car.