Which Country Will Achieve True Sustainability First?

[Proton Soup]

Coal and oil are not going to disappear overnight. Should we forego such an abundant and cheap source of energy, and force "sustainability" onto ourselves, by switching to expensive energy sources (solar and wind), and by switching from convenient gasoline vehicles ($10,000, 300 mile range, 5 minute recharge) to inconvenient and expensive electric vehicles ($30,000, 60-80 mile range, 1+ hour recharge), simply because we're afraid that we might eventually run out of oil? (Or to save polar bears?)

Is there reason to think that our government is better able to predict future supply of coal and oil than the market?

also, I'm not sure our current research projects in fusion energy generation would be "sustainable" in a horse/buggy/windmill economy. we simply have to keep moving forward, and will either succeed, or possibly crash and burn in a few hundred years (we've still got that fission, too, which I'm not really sure how much longer we'd get on top of fossil fuels).

 

[zomgwtf]

Canada has a better chance, lots of oil, gas, water, uranium, coal.
Pretty much all metals you want, lots of forests and more wheat than you can fly over.
It's also (unlike the US) self sufficient in TV comedians.

Main problem is coffee It has all the ingredients for donuts but needs to import double-doubles.

Take away my double-double and you'll be hearing from me mister.

 

[edpell]

Is there reason to think that our government is better able to predict future supply of coal and oil than the market?

I imagine the 5% of the market folks who are smart and plan long term will buy the resources that will be of high value in the future and so will make money for themselves. I have no expectation that they will invest for the common good. That is the different between markets and community action. Markets of individuals will do what is best for the individual investor. Community have the option to do what is good for the whole community and the long term.

 

[WhoWee]

There's no reason to be sustainable if you can be unsustainable.

It's always going to be cheaper to have an economy that mixes solar and coal energy, than to be 100% solar, as long as there's still coal laying around.

The only way any country or a group of countries can become truly sustainable is through extensive government intervention with an explicit objective to "cut emissions" and "save non-renewable resources".

I disagree. When the Government talks about solar and wind instead of coal - the result is higher energy costs. Give us (we the people) major tax incentives (expensed at time of purchase and deduct interest expense as paid) to invest in solar and wind for our homes - and let us PROFIT (tax free) from selling the power back to the grid...then you'll see excitement and commitment to Green Investment.

The last thing I want to hear is that my utility company will have to purchase pollution credits and charge me a higher rate - it's ludicrous!

 

[russ_watters]

...um, someone still has to pay for those incentives with higher taxes.

 

[WhoWee]

...um, someone still has to pay for those incentives with higher taxes.

While it's true, the person making the investment and taking the incentives would pay less. It's also true that their investment would result in a number of economically stimulative transactions resulting in a profit for the manufacturers, installation companies, and others - along with payroll taxes at those companies. Also, the electricity generated by the solar installation would cost less to generate and not consume resources. However, I'm uncertain as to the rate the utility would credit to the generator - it should be reduced to lower the cost of production.

 

[WhoWee]

My point was that incentives to produce and make a profit that can lower costs to everyone is more advantageous than creating a pollution credit exchange that penalizes everyone and makes a handful of traders mega-wealthy - unless of course you happen to be one of those traders.

 

[Al68]

Many nations, including the U.S., are "able" to do this now, but don't due to government regulation. The U.S. has, for practical purposes, an unlimited supply of Uranium for power production, and can easily grow enough food using only a small fraction of its land resources.

Both are currently limited by government, not nature.

They are limited by neither government nor nature, but by free market forces. There's no real need for new nuclear power plants or new farms, because existing plants and farms produce enough cheap energy and food, and there are many third-world countries with vast reserves of cheap fossil fuels they have no need for. Government could _force_ the country to be "sustainable", but right now the market does not see the need to be such.

This is a good point, but I think the OP was asking about being self-sustainable, and the U.S. currently relies on imported oil while it doesn't need to.

The "market forces" you refer to are responding to the fact that government regulation makes some energy sources more expensive than others, so they aren't really "free market forces" in the traditional sense.

But, you're still right, the U.S. could easily be self sustaining with or without nuclear power. But, in the long run, we just won't have any practical alternative to nuclear power, so there is every reason to advance the technology sooner rather than later. It's pretty amazing how well nuclear power can already compete, considering it's a technology in its infancy.

 

[hamster143]

But, you're still right, the U.S. could easily be self sustaining with or without nuclear power. But, in the long run, we just won't have any practical alternative to nuclear power, so there is every reason to advance the technology sooner rather than later. It's pretty amazing how well nuclear power can already compete, considering it's a technology in its infancy.

We have no idea what will or will not be practical in the long run. 30 years ago, solar was not practical at all, today solar panels are already cheap enough to start making sense, and there's a good chance that they'll get cheaper. Conversely, fusion has been touted as a promising, abundant and cheap source of energy since 1950's, and it's still as far from the practical implementation as it was then.

All we know is that we have enough coal for at least 50 years, and, when it becomes rare enough, an alternative solution will inevitably present itself. We should continue funding the research into solar, nuclear and fusion, but an attempt to switch away from coal now would only make us poorer and energy more expensive than it could have been.

I can draw an analogy with colonization of Mars. Will there be a human colony on Mars in 2100? Most likely, yes. We don't know what technology will be used to put it there, but our descendants will figure something out. That does not mean that we should spend $200 billion trying to put the colony there right now, using ICBM-derivative chemical rockets.