In Sudden, New Technology, I talk about the possibility of someone developing a hydrogen fusion reactor (or better, a hydrogen-boron reactor). If the electricity it produces were cheap enough, not only would such reactors replace coal and oil fired electric power plants, but the energy could be used to synthesize the fuel used in cars and trucks.
But suppose electricity-generating fusion continues to be a `technology of the future', as it has for the past half century. What then? (I speak of `electricity-generating fusion' because hydrogen bombs use fusion, too.)
It goes without saying that at some point, shortages of oil will push up its price, whether it be used for energy or as a chemical feedstock. There are big arguments as to when prices will rise. Some argue that peak world old production will occur within a decade or two; others say that peak production is two or three generations away. Regardless, so one expects the current fossil fuel economy to continue forever. It will end.
One expected replacement is liquid fuel synthesize from coal or tar. Synthesis technology is well known, but expensive. As Nigeria, Russia, and the Middle East are pumped dry, the price of oil will rise. When this happens, the Canadian province of Alberta becomes an important source.
The carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels may cause trouble sooner than supply shortages and accompanying high prices. For example, mosquitos may carry diseases outside their normal range or increased snow melt in Russia may suppress the Atlantic Ocean thermo-haline circulation.
These outcomes are the foreseeable, but not predictable, consequences of a future without inexpensive electricity-generating fusion. But without a cheap alternative, we may see the growth of technologies that make use of low density alternative sources of energy.
Electricity can be produced from the wind, the sun, ocean temperature differences, waves, and currents, and from biomass and organic waste. While none of these sources can alone supply humans with the amount of energy they use currently, in combination they can provide quite a bit.
Some alternative sources of energy are intermittent. In Denmark, for example, wind turbines fell silent during a calm week in February 2003. Similarly, clouds cut solar energy production irregularly and night stop production regularly. A contemporary solution is to build, and pay for, back up sources. This sharply increases cost.
Moreover, in and of themselves, regardless of backup, these alternate technologies are expensive. As far as I know, wind turbines are the only generators that come close to being as frugal as power plants that depend on uranium or coal. (Few are concerned with wind turbines' noise or with the birds they kill.)
Perhaps the side effects of coal-fired power plants, or the problems with storing radioactive waste will eventually show us that current energy prices are too low. Indeed, United States Senator James Inhofe has argued that current climate change comes from natural variability, not human activity. Although the Senator himself has not himself pointed at the implication of his words, it is there to see: that we must act more vigorously than otherwise expected to compensate for damaging and costly natural changes by restricting human-produced greenhouse gases.
Put another way, if we follow Senator Inhofe, we need strong and immediate governmental interference; if we follow the mainstream of scientists, we still need government regulation, but not as pressingly. (The problem comes because the usual pricing mechanisms deal only with the `internal costs' of a business. They do not force companies to account for `external costs'.)
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page