Walter Morton

Investing Into the End of the Hydrocarbon Age

It took 100 years to perfect internal combustion engines as the technology that drives our economy. A complete switch to solar power will take a long time but it is the "best bet." Huge infrastructure issues exist -- and the technology for very cost-effective solar is barely there. Advances in solar cell efficiency have been forthcoming, but not radical, and many of the newer solar technologies (i.e. thin film, nano) have not been tested in the field for long periods and may degrade or perform poorly. New ideas in materials, methods, manufacture are required. There has not been any revolutionary gain in understanding of electricity from the sun (photons to electrons) since Einstein explained it in 1905. Any advances since then have been in materials science and engineering, not at a conceptual level.

So why is solar the most-favored option for long-term energy future? Coal-burning will accelerate climate destruction and pollution. Bio-fuels require a lot of energy "input" for very little gain. Wind-power is not feasible in most locations. Tidal power and hydroelectric limited to restricted locations. Nuclear is a potential option but the supply of nuclear fuel is limited (some estimates say exhausted in 30 years.) And we do not know how to build effective fusion reactors -- yet. New reactor designs may help, but humans are understandably a bit nervous about reactors, radiation, and maintenance after Chernobyl & Three Mile Island. If we built 500 new reactors, the odds are we'd see new accidents. NUclear fission can never be a perfectly safe technology.

The most workable answer for our future is solar (because it's free, unlimited, safe, clean) but the technology infrastructure to capture the sun's energy on mass scale is daunting. For a good review of what sort of mass program it would take to run America on solar, read Scientific American's article on a "Grand Plan" : www.sciam.com/article....