- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,295
- Reactions
- 17,525
The last thing politicians at the national or international level want is an alterantive source of cheap energy.
1. Wipes out existing coal industry with the associated economic dislocation noting that Australia, China and the US are all major world powers in terms of coal reserves and/or extraction rates.
2. Removes the need for any country to hold US Dollars as a means to buy oil.
3. Makes the Middle East irrelevant in world affairs along with Venezuela etc.
4. Removes much of the global role of the US military and the USA itself - a country whose economic strength post-WWII was largely built upon oil and things derived from it.
5. Renders a vast empire of trading and speculation in oil (and to a far lesser extent coal and gas) redundant with consequent losses for the big end of town.
6. Apart from most hydro schemes, it makes the entire existing power generation asset base essentially redundant.
Now, the cynic in me notes that it is the "alternative" energy sources that receive opposition where they threaten the "conventional" sources of black coal, oil and gas.
Nuclear (uranium) - strong opposition until it too became a "conventional" energy source.
Hydro - attracts opposition in any circumstance where it enables an economically disadvantaged location to gain advantage over those relying on "conventional" energy sources. Nobody minds though when it's a small scheme in a Third World backwater or is only a supplement to "conventional" fuels, thus not threatening anyone.
Brown coal - same situation as with anything else that isn't uranium, black coal, oil or natural gas. There's no ability to trade it, no ability to speculate on its price, and it gives an economic advantage to anyone able to mine it on a massive scale. Hence it will be opposed with or without the CO2 issue.
Basically, the world as we know it falls apart if someone comes up with a "silver bullet" to actually replace coal, oil, gas and/or to give some region a comparative advantage in energy production over the major economic powers either globally or within a country. Hence official support for solar, wind, biomass, small hydro schemes, landfill gas, insulating houses and anything else that can't manage to supply the total load meanwhile there's fierce opposition to anything that can.
And likewise the world falls apart if we keep relying on coal, oil and natural gas since they simply are not sustainable.
At some point, a paradigm shift is inevitable but don't expect those who gain from the status quo to be in a hurry for it to happen...