The Big Energy Gamble Arnold's plan for AB 32 and the Green Economy of California Interested to hear your thoughts after watching the program. I found it intersting that "the skeptic" was a member of CEI ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute"]Competitive Enterprise Institute[/ame]). Chapter 1: The Governator's Bet California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is leading an aggressive charge against global warming in his state. Will the country follow? Chapter 2: Keeping up With the Neighbors Ed Begley, Jr. and Bill Nye have a friendly rivalry over who can have a smaller carbon footprint. But not every Californian can afford to join the game. Chapter 3: Powering the Grid California plans to scrap coal and turn more to wind and solar to generate electricity. The technological and political challenges are formidable. Chapter 4: Nuclear to the Rescue? While California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore wants the state to build more nuclear power plants, a company called Nanosolar is betting on new ways to harvest sunlight. Chapter 5: Taking on the Auto In a state where the car is king and people drive from one end of a mall to the other, can California meet its goals to slash carbon emissions? Chapter 6: A Plug-In Solution Will the plug-in hybrid be the centerpiece of a new energy system? Steven Chu believes science can find answers, like this one, to our energy and climate problems.
As a side note, it's intriguing that ExxonMobile sponsers. Likely, they sponser Nova programs, regardless of topic. Yea, I know power companies diversify. Still, fossil fuel profitis come & go via 'supply & demand'. That's all. Regarding the topics, even the folks that are VERY concerned with efficienty / environment either can't or won't pay excess costs to be green ... at some 'Cost' point. So it's a huge hurdle even for the enviro-conscious. Many of the 'guzzler' crowd (for lack of a descriptive term) don't want to look at environmental / oil shortage issues unless the prodect(s) costs LESS money. Throw in national debt / credit crisis, and the goals get murkey. And as the polarizing 'man-made' global warming thread shows, many won't even consider that aspect. Most folk's nature is to worry about their self ... and maybe the next couple generations of their own family ... so even if we ARE heating our selves up, there's an "oh well ... who can truly say" attitude. It's a good series.
I'll watch the show -- thanks for the link. I have to admit though that my mind is already pretty much made up: No significant conservation will happen until carbon taxation doubles or triples current end-user prices. Until significant conservation happens, population growth and consumerism will lead to energy demands that pace clean energy development. Specifically, oil consumption may take a different trajectory because of international politics. Obama certainly understands the importance of domestic energy supplies, but public ignorance and apathy, republican reactionary policy, and entrenched carbon interests make for a whole lot of inertia. Sound pessimistic ? I like to say realist. On a slightly different note I was musing this morning what a carbon 'footprint' means, and I decided to calculate it as how much carbon a person or family emits as a ratio of one years worth of respiration for one adult My back of the envelope calc for one person came out to 600 pounds of CO2 annualy. Sound about right ? I assumed 300 grams of food a day with a caloric density of 6 calories/gram, 70% carbon content, and a molar ratio of 44/12 for carbon/CO2.
Fair envelope work, SageBrush Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions says 1 kg CO2 per day. Times 365 divde by 2.2 is 166 pounds CO2 per year. I guess your 300 (dry weight) is high. Most food has a high water content.
I thought fossil fuels were the big energy gamble. All those poisons and no idea how to clean them up or what the consequences would be.
