[atul]

I've for some time liked to think the relation between real world and economics as a relation between chaotic system and an attempt to model it through linearization. Basically, you take the local (current) trend, and assume it is going to last for a while, optimize on that assumption, and after a short while look where you are and repeat. The problem with this is that you might end up staying in the locally highest hill and miss the mountain range just a short way away.

What has that to do with anything? Basically, using fossil fuels is the current local optimum, despite the fact that it might do bad stuff to environment and won't last anyway. Getting rid of even a portion of fossil fuels won't happen with anyone who is looking on quarterly profits at helm. Because for accountants the trinity of coal, oil and natural gas is the way to go for now.

Can't say, though, that the proposed options would sound workable.

For instance, centralized/distributed sun and wind. It's never clear which the PV/wind advocates advocate. Either it's distributed and everywhere, with everyone making their own electricity and backed up by huge transmission grid getting juice from somewhere else, or then it's large plants in uninhabited lands supplying electricity to far away places. The problem with large grids isn't just losses to resistance in wires (which you could theoretically avoid by using fictional room-temperature superconductors), but also the fact that if you build huge network, you start getting issues with inductance and general network stability. There's a very good reason for my country having a DC connection only to our eastern neighbour, even if that connection transmits GW-class power.

Solar/wind might get really nice and cheap given time, but I still haven't seen any solution to the problem that when such an intermittent power sources start to contribute more than 10% of total annual electricity, the whole grid will have to start to operate on their terms. Basically after that point there might be times when 100% of current power needs will be supplied by wind... or 0%. And the rest of production must follow.

Big industry's quite keen on this carbon capture and storage. But much of what I've seen has been little but glorified greenwash. For one the scale of the projects are still way too small - several MW projects. And this thing scales much? Also even if the capture part would be possible without expending too much extra energy, the storage part is still unresolved. Geological storage is suitable only in selected locations (old oil fields). Mineral storage is absurd (use a ton of Calcium to store two tons of CO2?) at least where I'm looking at. And dumping it to sea bottom and assuming it won't come up doesn't strike me as too good either. Also the fun part is, that every storage option assumes some percentage to be leaking annually. Basically CCS isn't a way to mitigate CO2-emissions, but a way to _delay_ them. Talk about future generations.

Nuclear gets the political opposition from the other competitors across the board. It should be seen as something that compliments other CO2-light options, not as a horror flick waiting to happen. Even waste is a more political problem than technical one (hint: US is not nearly most advanced nation in resolving the waste issue). Problem are also the advocates bashing regulations: the regulation in such a high-risk/low probability field are important and everyone's friend. At least when done correctly, and followed also.

Anyway, no silver bullet for providing energy, your stance towards climate change non-withstanding. Diversifying energy base won't give profits next year, but anyone who figures the stuff out and has muscle to pull it through will probably remembered as a visionaire.

My few eurocent rant.