Hi Paul,

Sorry, it appears that the world is feeding itself better than ever. And population growth rates are slowing pretty much everywhere: in the more 'consumerist' countries, it is at zero or negative. If anything, what poorer parts of the world such as most of Africa and India need is more energy generation, better infrastructure (which itself will need a massive increase in the use of energy). Do you reckon that can happen with renewable sources of energy generation ?

We've probably been down this road many times, but how are wind towers and solar panels made ? Using renewable energy ? I don't think so: Chinese firms make them, using relatively cheap labour and fossil fuel-generated energy, because to use renewable energy sources would be horrendously expensive. CO2 is produced in the production of wind towers and solar panels. So we have to build in the unavoidable production of CO2 into the lives of wind towers and solar panels. Isn't that so ?

Until more efficient means are found to make wind towers and solar panels, to bring their costs down below those of using fossil fuels, effectively we are using fossil fuels - not here but over there, out of sight. CO2 ? NIMBY.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe, the world's population is growing at the rate of about 80 million annually, that is about the population of Turkey being added every year, hardly zero. it is predicted by the UN that the worlds population will be 9.7 billion by the year 2050, that is adding the present populations of China and India combined in half a life time for the average Australian, again hardly zero.
Around 800 million people are today affected by hunger, 95% of those to be found in the third world. Energy consumption per capita has been rising steady, in equivalent tonnes of oil, world energy use has grown from 1.3 billion tonnes in 1971 to 1.9 billion tonnes in 2013, nearly all of the growth has taken place in the developed world, plus China. Energy consumption today is between 5.5 and 7 times greater per capita in developed countries than in the rest of the world. World fossil fuel production plateaued around 2010 and is unlikely to increase again. Nuclear power production at around 11% of the worlds total has also dropped slightly since 2010, although there are plans in place to expand the worlds nuclear power generation particularly in China, India USA, Russia some of Europe etc The increase in atomic power will not offset the decline in fossil fuel generation capacity.
Considering the facts I have presented I believe we must become more efficient at energy use, better at distribution, and we must embrace the development of sustainable alternative sources of energy production. Whether or not we like it, there is going to be some pain and some cost, particularly in the West as we adjust from a predominantly fossil fuel reliant energy system to sustainable alternatives.

Joe, what I must add is we will not choose to leave fossil fuels, fossil fuel will leave us. How we manage that change for a better future is the great debate. On one side we have a do nothing head in the sand conservative band who tend to be skeptical of alternatives except nuclear. then there is the Nimby's who see an idealistic world of energy simply blowing in the wind. The answer will lie somewhere in between, and it will mean pain, hard decisions and costs, there will be winners and losers, no doubt about that. How well we cushion the blow, very must depends on us here and now.

Paul 1405,

"On one side we have a do nothing head in the sand conservative band who tend to be skeptical of alternatives except nuclear"

Do nothing? Head in the sand? Do you read anything here before you say that?

Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, i.e. that scalabe, affordable storage will come if you click your heals together and wish hard? That's the real head in the sand stuff.

Do you have anything more than blind faith and bluster?

PS, you do realize that not only domestic, gov't and industrial needs must be met but also the phasing out fossil-fueled transport, right?

That's reliable, dispatchable 24/7/365, repeat, 24/7/365.

Perhaps you're one of the hair-shirt brigade and don't see the need?

Hi Paul,

I believe that the poorest people in the world are entitled to the same comforts and conveniences and life expectancy as we enjoy. If that means their consumption of fossil fuels, then that's OUR problem in the first instance, not just theirs. If thorium nuclear energy generation can help that along, then I'm all for it.

In the meantime, I'd support the massive use of fossil fuels by poorer countries UNTIL they have similar standards as we have. Anything else is callous greed on our part, expecting poor people to stay poor basically for our benefit, i.e.so that we can slowly wean ourselves off fossil fuels without losing too much of our lifestyles.

So, if WE want a cleaner environment, we have a duty, a DUTY, to devise more environmentally-friendly means of generating energy. Until poorer countries have our standards of living, it's not particularly their problem.

Cheers,

Joe