• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Richard W. Postma of Littleton writes:

The editorial in Wednesday’s RMN by Nicholas Kristof (Conserving energy is the key) was interesting to me, as a scientist in the oil industry, but I found some of it very disappointing. I agree with him about our need to conserve energy, especially hydrocarbons, and that improving efficiency is a big part of it. However, he makes several commonly made mistakes. He touts electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars. He seems to forget that the electricity and hydrogen have to come from somewhere, and apparently doesn’t understand the conservation of energy laws that apply. If we had a pipeline to the sun or to Jupiter, both of which are more than 90% hydrogen, then our problems would be forever over. But the only sources of hydrogen are through electrolysis of water or similar treatment of methane. Getting hydrogen from water takes more energy than we get back by burning it. Getting it from methane uses the very hydrocarbon we are trying to conserve. Unless we get the necessary electrical energy from burning coal or using uranium, we are losing out.
And Kristof nowhere even mentions nuclear energy as an option! The fear of CO2 has also distorted our thinking about energy conservation. The recent smear job by Newsweek in their cover article (ridiculed by Newsweeks own Paul Samuelson, in Newsweek and the RMN) did one service. They named several scientists with very good reputations in climatology research who are among the naysayers, thus disproving the oft-repeated claim of scientific unanimity on anthropogenic global warming.
(Subject for another letter). The real problem facing us is to extend the life of our hydrocarbon fuel. We should do that by burning plentiful coal instead of natural gas to generate electricity, or better yet, use nuclear generator plants! Is someone from the oil business advocating coal and nuclear instead of oil or gas? YES!

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

You point out a very interesting point...most talk regarding "conservation" is really just looking for another solution. Conservation, by definition means the careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent depletion.....It does, whether we like it or not imply sacrifice.

Postma makes some good points and, at least, he states that he is a consultant to the oil industry. However, I must disagree with the idea that everything has to come from existing fossil fuel supplies. Nuclear is, of course, the obvious solution. But we continue our folly, which no one, in a greed driven, bottom of the line economy, wants to address. Look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? Greed!

Energy is around us. Finding it, storing it are major issues. as long as someone can make a buck on it, we're their pawns.

There is a safe, fusion-nuclear generator, ninety-three million miles away. Let's use it, instead of using our grandkids to the pay off the mistakes of our errors

Clean western coal has some disadvantages but at least it is here. We have our own resources and can free ourselves, somewhat, from foreign fuels.

It is interesting that France gets most of their energy from Nuclear Power. And they don't glow. Nuclear Power has been demonized by the left yet, we have numerous Nuclear power plants here and we don't seem to have the problem so oft cited on the left.... glowing gophers.

The french also re-use and recondition their fuel so that 90% is recovered. We don't do that for some reason, possibly cost.

If Stan can come up with a new power supply, he should, but until we can break the laws of conservation of energy, we are stuck with the sources we have now.

Nuclear energy is a viable, good short term focus to reduce our finite fossil fuel reserves, however we need to look in the long term as well, and that will never happen with our current government, both Dem and Rep. Both parties are funded by fossil fuel interests and why would they figuratively "bite the hand that feeds them." I say lets put some sensible scientists in charge, not the fanatics and activists, but ones who will look at all evidence, evaluate it using the scientific process (a set of guidelines for scientific investigation that has been in use for hundreds if not thousands of years and that which has also been the investigational foundation behind most of our meaningful technological advances), sort out what will and won't work, and then focus their attention with all of our best interests in mind. We can find better ways to harness solar and hydrogen energy, but we'll find neither without funding and the right people behind the science. For christsakes, none of the best, most innovative scientific discoveries were made without taking risks and working through many failures before eventual success. Unfortunately this will never happen until the fossil fuel lobby and their unbridled influence is properly and permanently brought to heel. What the hell are we waiting for. We're all fools to continue to put up with the status quo.

I agree with pat but, also know it is a Don Quixote like dream to think any energy source will look to the best interests of people when it is controled by profit driven big business. It is ironic that they,on the one hand, seek ever increasing profits and on the other, present themselves as environmentally aware that new sources are a necessity, This smacks of hypocrisy to me in that the money they make from oil is huge while the money they dedicate to the development of these new sources of energy are miniscule in comparison.

You can't replace scientists that are in the hired of, or bribed into advancing the mercatile interests of Big oil. The only hope, and I really don't like it, is governmental interference in that business, We all know manipulation and corruption rule when it comes to mega buck business.

The only other hope is that the people will rise up against all this Crap and demand change and that will only happen when they get their heads out of their butts, quit argueing over nonsensical and trivial inanities and see that those they elect to represent them haven't a clue, nor do they care, what the people want.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly