I am a uranium, thorium and plutonium fan. The densely concentrated nature and zero emissions leads to a better, cheaper power source that will last for thousands of years.

Unlike the wind, sun and hydrocarbons, atomic fission is “new” in the sense that there are still people alive today who were adults when it was first discovered.

Dr. Bradley can speak for himslef, but my guess is that he is clarifying that wind energy is not an infoant industry, as that is one of the main reasons that wind power lobbyists use to demand ever increasing subsidies —” until it gets on its feet.”

Rubbish. See EnergyPresentation.Info

I am not as skeptical as you seem to be, although I have my doubts about the more alarming AGW predictions. However I find all the argument about whether, how much and when rather dry and boring. I am much more interested in the economics of alternative energy sources and am very worried that crass Government interference is distorting the market and damaging the environement. Why the heck are we subsidising the purchase of maize from the mouths of starving Mexican peasants to turn into ethanol to feed our cars? Lunacy!

Here in the UK we are covering our national parks in wind farms and the Govt are proposing the Severn Barage, a huge damn across this country’s biggest tidal estuary – a refuge for millions of wading birds and a precious natural habitat. Madness!

As you say in your latest piece, we should get the engineering, economics and environmental impacts right before we launch into these large scale projects.

One thing that puzzles me though. I am not sure what you are getting at with your pieces on how solar and wind power are not “infant industries”. So what? Windmills in old Amsterdam were economic in their time, and 600ft 5MW wind turbines might become economic in ours – provided they are put in the right place (in the UK that is offshore to our west). Old technology can be improved so that it goes from uneconomic to profitable.

I cannot think of a single industry that is an “infant” by your classification. Computers are not an infant industry – after all they were using the abacus in Mesopotamia 4,700 years ago.

Your piece about Edison and the battery was interesting history, however Edison was talking about bottles with slabs of lead and pints of acid. His comments about electric cars might have been different if he had known about modern Lithium battery technology.

Free enterprise will eventually replace oil as our main fuel once all the “easy” oil has been extracted. A friend who is an executive of an oil exploration company tells me that “peak oil” was 2005. From now on the cost of extracting, refining and distributing oil will rise inexorably to the extent that the alternatives will become more economic – or better for other reasons.

Personally I don’t think that this will be the total end of the Internal Combustion Engine, it is simply too efficient, just that it may become a hybrid with an electric motor and use a different fuel. Hydrogen? Methane? Methanol? The market will decide!

The economical battery befuddled Thomas Edison and it befuddles us a century later. See: http://masterresource.org/?p=4117

I gather that the capital cost of creating water electrolysis systems is coming down with catalyst doped plastic electrodes. For local use the hydrogen could be stored and then converted back using a fuel cell provided the capital and maintenance costs are not too great.

p.s. Is it possible (and economical) to combine H2 with CO2 to create H2O and CH4 (8H + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O)?

If so, for industrial scale installations the electricity could be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then the hydrogen could be combined with atmospheric CO2 to create Methane and Water. The Methane could then be further converted into Ethane, Propane or Butane if extra stability and transportability is required. Pipedream?

Advocating using such a source for generating electricity is akin to promoting horse drawn vehicles to replace cars (which would save material amounts of CO2).