More technically: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. And in a closed system (isolated) the net amount of energy remains constant.

Something is something. I would say the ineffable Milton Friedman: It is what I said! the net amount of energy on our planet, seen as a closed system, is retained, and after obtaining capital and transform welfare, is still there, to transform it again getting more capital and more welfare. Item more, the Earth is not a closed system, since it receives electromagnetic energy continuously del Sol, which can be transformed, and that cosmic radiation, but for now we do not know how to transform them because we do it at some point since.

But Friedman had no idea of Physics and probably had forgotten what they taught him in high school, in particular that there are several forms of energy. Basically two: potential energy and kinetic energy. Today already some effects, should add a third, we call residual energy (energy waste, in the language of the rule). One form of kinetic energy dispersed at the atomic and molecular (thermal energy), hardly profitable unless it is heavily concentrated (and therefore not worthy of the adjective "residual ").

The kinetic energy is the form of energy in action.

The potential energy constitute forms of latent energy that "expect" be put into action, paying job. Example: water to a certain height into a reservoir has a kind of gravitational potential energy that fall to put into action a turbine or an alternator, which in turn is "stored" as electric power (in this simple scheme, otherwise potential energy, form suitable for distribution) which is then distributed by a network to a home or a factory where it is transformed into energy in a light bulb or mechanical work on a lathe.

Another form of potential energy is the "chemical energy", associated with the chemical structure of a substance (energy at the time was needed to form a particular molecule, for example, methane) and can be released under another form of energy "profitable" through a reaction induced (eg, the burning of that molecule of methane in an atmosphere of oxygen).

The mass of a substance also "accumulate" energy in large amounts, as Albert Einstein taught us (E = mc2). The energy potential "is capable" to release one gram of any substance is approximately 2.5 million megawatt hour using the familiar formula above. This is the potential of the so-called "nuclear power", but in the world we live in, this potential can only benefit from a negligible amount, as we shall see in a separate chapter. We still talk about what we called "residual energy" . Throughout energy transformation, part of the original form of energy is "lost" in the form of residual thermal energy (friction in the axles of a turbine dissipating energy as heat, warming air in the vicinity of a bulb or a boiler steam, etc., etc.). This leads to the second principle:

In other words, we consume energy or take an effective comes from consuming a larger quantity of other forms of energy.

The metabolic functions also require energy consumption. In the chlorophyll, plants take CO2 and O2 of the atmosphere and convert it into glucose by absorbing energy sun. The glucose stored as part of solar energy absorbed in the form of potential energy chemistry (in it), then the plant, or an herbivore after intake, metabolize, rendering it another kind of energy or doing mechanical work. But each transformation, originally part of the energy from the sun will have been dispelled.

We said that Friedman had no idea… p physics, and although their entendederas him on to the first principle of thermodynamics, and use it to draw the conclusions that I wanted, the second it was an arcane, and certainly did not have time nor desire to apprehend. (He chose to earn money and pat on the back making guru NeoCon).

After this long digression, we (again) to the point: The availability of energy in this blessed planet.

You can question the figures that we present. If you want to multiply or divide by two or ten some of them (with sentidiño, how goes?) Does not change anything qualitatively. Let us start with the energy needs of humanity.

Anthropologists say that a hunter-gatherer and requires about 5 kcal / d (3 for 2 and nutrition to maintain the household), or roughly 250 W. If we give them credit, an agricultural society requires energy consumption per capita of about 26 kcal / d (about 1.300W) divided into 6 for nutritional needs, 12 for home and business, 7 for industrial and agricultural uses, and 1 for transportation. The homo faber already requires 77Kcal / d (approximately 3.800W), 7 for nutrition, 32 for the home and commerce, industry and agriculture for 24 and 14 for transportation. And to get where we are, homo tecnologicus needs about 230 kcal / d (approximately 11.000W) spread over 10 kcal / d for nutrition, 66 for household and commercial activities, 91 for industrial and agricultural uses, and 63 for transportation .

To date, between 6,500 million human beings who inhabit the Earth, coexist with us, "Amit white" (homo tecnologicus class), communities of hunter-gatherers, agricultural , And industrialists. The inequalities in the distribution of energy consumption are huge between different peoples, but to take data from other sources, told them some things pointing the International Energy Outlook 2005 report:

If democratization energy consumption worldwide to 6,000 million inhabitants of the planet today, the consumption level standard developed countries (say 10 kilowatts per person, not for complicity with the accounts), it turns out that to date that would generate 10 kW / person x 6x109 = 60 Terawatios : More than 6 times the current generation! If by the year 2030 compliance with the population growth forecasts to 9000 million people, even considering that energy consumption is not growing, but if the third jealous still working to live like us, should be multiplied by ten current production !

Fuel is the cleanest fossil methane. And every kilogram of methane that burn involves the issuance of 2.75 kilograms of CO2 (combustion of methane responds to a reaction 2CH4 + 2O2 + heat => 2CO2 + 2H2 Or, in other words, each mole of methane -16-grams leads to a mole CO2 -44-grams). According lengthens the hydrocarbon chain, its rate increases CO2, being 3 for butane and propane for little more. The octane fuel is more energy system in operation (C8 H10)…

James Lovelock (the father of the Gaia hypothesis), a competent chemist specializing in atmospheric phenomena, it warns:

It would be no cosmic drama, of course, but to you. They do not like what happened to his great-great-grandson, how not? Although the great-great-grandson is believed as much as in the great-great-grandparents, how we do? Well, at worst, we should not expect much.

At last we arrive at the "alternative energy" and alternative energy! Let us start with the "alternative energy"

The question is, again, the damned market, and deception continued with the new emerging sectors, new lobbies of the "alternative energy" trying to mislead public opinion… or arrimar the ember to its sardine .

Also guilty of this deception, our governments are not taken seriously this problem and propose measures whose sole purpose is to stifle public opinion. For example near the Xunta of Galicia, announced on June 7 this year Galicia reduced 12 million tons of CO2 , which will invest 346.7 million euros and only three days later, leaves us stunned with the following press release: The Xunta planned to invest 16,000 billion on roads until 2020 .

All reports commissioned by supranational agencies, domestic or corporate, emphasize the need for promotion of "alternative energy" but not the need for alternative energy. Thus, you will see that some reports commissioned by the EEC, governments of various countries as varied as the United States. UU. or Spain, speaking of wind, solar, biofuels, including the revival of the nuclear option as "alternative energy"

start with the last out in the arena, and the weakest:

There is a lot for that type mandar horn to this first alternative. It is said that biomass is a "renewable energy" and non-polluting. They say that is renewable because their production cycle is relatively short, which does not contribute to increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because roughly the amount of CO2 that deliver biomass after being burned in a nuclear plant would, more or less, the amount of CO2 that would have set during their cultivation . This is falsely true.

In 2003, biologist Jeffrey Dukes (University of Utah, USA) estimated that fossil fuels that burn in that year were formed in prehistoric times from organic matter "containing 44x1018 grams of carbon, which is over 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota ". One can see a summary of this work here .

To put it clearly, that means that in 2003 we used the equivalent of four centuries of prehistoric plants (including phytoplankton). Or that every day we use the equivalent of all fossil fuels in the new plant material that takes more than a year to grow on the land and oceans.

Also according to the report, needed 98 tons of prehistoric biomass, to obtain 4.87 kg. oil and turn it into a gallon of gasoline.

But talk of biofuels. Any interesting plant for generating biomass is in the best case, a biannual cycle of growth (two harvests per year). But it turns out that the amount of CO2 that has set this plant over four or six months of growth, were burned in a central generating little in a minute. And energy demand is constant.

With the so-called biofuels, biodiesel and bioethanol, spends as much the same thing: the cycle of biomass generation capable of being transformed into biofuel is very long compared to its cycle in energy Transformation (half a year compared to one minute). In addition, its production process involves additional emissions of CO2 derived energy consumption processes that require clearing of land, paid (including emissions from the process of industrial production fertilizers), harvested and processed. But all these considerations are pecata minute:

Following the manufacture of biofuels (and thanks to "thank" the "free market" and the law of supply and demand) are witnessing the rise in wheat prices , Corn, soybeans, etc.. etc.. In this regard, voilà another delivery of the pledged Horror Stories the good Professor Bartlett:

A subsection. The study in question has been directed by R. Righelato can read it and expanded here , apart from consultation in Science. They warn that the review of "Public" is purely journalistic. And journalists, you know, even when "specialize" in popular science, always suffer from a lack of rigour.

So when read in the review that "the scientific community believes…" not believe him. It is not accurate, unless they are included as the views of the scientific community by and for Plumíferos paid. But the opinion of the scientific community informed and he has devoted a minimum of time to analyze the issue was unanimous: biofuels, as "alternative" are a p… shit.

In a chart shows the evolution of prices of wheat, maize and barley cereal in the auction of Barcelona, where it looks like those prices have evolved since June to October 2007 respectively from 150 to 285, 150 to 253, and 125 to 252 euros per tonne. To this end gloss that emphasize news:

The summary of this work we can read:

By the way, that on page 51 of this study gives reason for Bartlett to good when it comes to the rate of return of energy "bioethanol" produced on the basis of maize. However, in the following pages, are presented positive rates of return for energy "bioethanol" based on sugar cane (Brazil unfortunate!), Palm oil (poor jungles of Borneo!) And soybeans ( Quo vadis, jungles of Southeast Asia, my pampas argentina, my Amazon!). Read it and echen a look at the web links that appear in the literature of that study.

Let us continue doing cuentecillas. Sugarcane is by far the most profitable crop to produce biodiesel: about 6,000 liters per hectare cultivated, which amount to about 38 barrels per hectare.

The American friend says they alone consume 13 million barrels per day only in their vehicles, then the American friend would have to devote to the production of biofuels some 340,000 hectares to cover its supply of one day!

Imagine that a multinational yankee of those get a variety of sugar cane genetically modified yielding four crops a year. Well, our good friends arrange for them alone would need 41 million hectares to move "sustainably" their cars. That amounts to 4% of the total surface emerged on the planet (0.4 million km 2 compared to a total of 10 million)

Nearly half the length of their country. And these cuentecillas do on the total land, not on farmland in general, nor on suitable for cultivation of sugarcane in particular.

As for the desideratum of the EEC to achieve that 10% of automotive fuel consumption comes from "biofuels, the accounts and has made the OECD, and reflects our M. Ballenilla said in his work. Voila:

One thing for hope: "The calculations for the European Union exclude ethanol for wine." Good… we fought for the moment!

The impact and will have the use of biofuels already beginning to be reflected almost before you start using them. The sad story is repeated. Poor countries see as the prices of staple foods soar without affecting or one cent on the farmer. They can not buy basic grains for food, while a few in the rich countries make big business. Let's review this press release of the newspaper El Pais on April 11 this year:

Unfortunately it seems that the EU has no intention of reversing his eagerness to promote the use of biofuels as additives / substitutes for the automotive, despite the dire consequences that the industry is taking bioethanol and biodiesel on food prices. It will not be for lack of reports. here have another.

Their role in this field is and must remain marginal. There is no longer an important energy resource in undeveloped societies, but its management is delicate. Remember deforestation in Uganda caused by the burning of wood from a few thousand refugees from the conflict in Rwanda, for purposes of mere subsistence. One thing is the recycling of bagasse the harvest of grapes, olive oil, hazelnut shells, crop stubble or whatever you want. To produce biofuels or be burned in central near farms to reduce costs exploitation. Another thing is distorting agricultural production so that the lobby is lining without being imported the consequences of their business.

Who has an interest in promoting consumption of biofuels? Answer: the lobby of the sector. Think that in Europe, consumption of one million barrels per day of biodiesel, the price of crude at present, involves some 90 million euros a day…! If the profit was a 10% would be more than 9 million euros a day to spread among a dozen producers. I do not believe you. earn half that amount in his life, although I might be wrong. We, some months you do not succeed…

In order that everyone Arrimadas the ember to its sardine. Cutting edge in "biofuels" is the production of biodiesel from marine plankton. Any company, whose name we do not want to remember, posits the mass production of plankton for this purpose. And of course, hopefully they are thinking of "marine farms" (matter of economics, profitability and the only possibility of mass production and alternative). Chachi piruli.

This chapter is dispatched faster yet, because hydrogen is not a primary source of energy.

That is, there is no free hydrogen on our planet. There is much, yes, but in the form of water. Therefore, available free to generate hydrogen energy, energy required for their production.

The first law of thermodynamics tells us that to get 1Kwh energy from the combustion of hydrogen free, requires at least 1Kwh energy to produce hydrogen from water. And the Second Law tells us that the First Law is very optimistic, because part of the energy invested to generate free hydrogen is going to dissipate in the form of residual energy, and part of the energy potential from the combustion of hydrogen also be dissipated.

The hydrogen fuel cell is a device that performs these functions (hydrolyze water and burn the hydrogen to produce energy generated). The efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is very high (50-60%), and is expected to increase the efficiency up to 85%.

is considered very interesting to exploit the potential of this technology ligand hydrogen production free to renewable energy sources. In this way, getting free hydrogen from a primary source of clean and renewable energy such as wind, can be stored in clean energy fuel cells easy distribution to the sectors demanding that the (automobile, for example).

For leave a door open for a future "hydrogen economy", is working on methods of generating hydrogen compounds metabolized by bacteria that hydrogenated releasing this gas. Currently laboratory tests are and this type of biotechnology is far from becoming reality, the absence of any further study on its potential, that is, how much "barrels of oil equivalent" could be expected (reasonably) of its development level Industrial.

For some is the eternal "promising" source of energy supply. But suffers from serious problems to become an alternative energy to the current demand.

Photovoltaic systems (PV) can not provide power at all times (at night, on cloudy days…), which incapacitate them as the sole source of supply industrial or domestic.

Use battery storage system as possible "surplus" of production for use in such situations is an option. But batteries greatly increase the initial cost of the system and its maintenance, resulting in a notable increase in the cost of leveling kwh produced, in addition to becoming at the end of their useful life in a highly polluting waste.

Addition, it is argued that the cost of PV is not competitive. It's true. But truth is a very "tiny".

As of 2005, the International Energy Agency presented the following installation costs and for generating different types of facilities:

Energy prices are different in different countries, sensitive to local energy policy and national economic systems. That is because the range of cost prices which are identified in the table to the same technology. Also, data from the IEA takes into account the variance in the discount rate between 5% and 10%. Kwh prices do not include the costs of transmission and distribution, nor the costs of emission greenhouse gases.

We will continue talking about the projection of future production costs FV and although the problems presented by PV technology as an alternative source capable of meeting the growing demand of energy present seemed insurmountable, FV production systems connected to the network can contribute significantly to reducing emissions of CO 2 leveled at a cost of production very interesting, competitive in certain locations with the cost of generation at conventional power plants and modern thermal combined cycle, and with a projection of future cost levels below them. In January 2007, the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety of the Federal Republic of Germany, the European country with largest deployment of production FV, issued a report on the costs of renewable energies, which stated that in 2005 these energies accounted for 10.4% of total output German, and helped reduce 38 million tons in emissions of greenhouse gases, that is, almost 2 / 3 of the total reduction of emissions achieved (60 million tons)!

Turning to prices, the Department Of Energy (DOE) of the U.S. government in its strategic study "Solar Energy Technologies Program: Multiyear program plan 2007-2011" that can be seen here , an estimate of the costs of PV solar energy for the period 2007 -2011, According to the concept LCO ( L evelized C ost O f E nergy), costs level to take into account the initial investment in the production centre of his life time, the capitalization of investment, operation and maintenance costs, etc.. The study considered various central FVS: Domestic (isolated system with storage batteries), distributed generation networking and centralized generation network.

The domestic generation "self", isolated from the network, have a high LCO, primarily due to costs of operation and maintenance (O & M) strongly affected by the requirement of having storage batteries. However, in remote and isolated locations with good conditions of sunlight, these systems are very competitive, and even, the only alternative.

But home systems connected to the network are becoming very attractive. The houses equipped with such systems produce energy for their own consumption. If the production is greater than consumption, the excess is injected to the overall network of electrical distribution, whereas if the production itself is not enough (or has not, as in the night hours), system switches to make the network demand instant. The table below shows the cost of various parameters of such a system, supposedly installed in Phoenix (Arizona), according to records the DOE report said.

As can be seen in the last row of the table, the cost level of kilowatt hours ready for domestic consumption (alternating current at the same frequency of the overall network) is about 30 cents ($ c), hoping that the cost resulting from c $ 15 in 2015 and $ 9 c in 2020. If this well, in 2015 would be reached parity price level of kw photovoltaic with the price of kw from the network., And it would be 50% cheaper in 2020!.

This is not science fiction. General Electric expected price parity with the network in 2015 in areas of heatstroke U.S. (like Arizona). The cost parity with the network already exists in Italy since 2006, according to the statistical office (Eurostat) in the EEC See it here . Italy is well heatstroke, and production reaches FV 1600 kWh/m2 per year (most in Sicily: 1800 kWh/m2). In addition, parity has been achieved and exceeded in regions such as Hawaii and other islands due to high cost levels of energy production based on fossil fuels.

As for production

FV concentrated and networked to a central between 10 and 15 MW installed, the level of energy costs in Arizona is estimated in 2005 at a banda between $ 15-22 c / kwh (depending on costs financing investment in plant), with estimates for 2015 and 2020 respectively between $ 10-15 and 6-9 c / kwh

Since then, the evolution of technology FV and the growth of its implementation is doing very quickly down the cost of kwh produced by this technology. And the evolution of oil prices and natural gas prices are shooting kwh produced in conventional thermal power!.

In Nº 15 of the journal Advances in Solar Energy (2003) can read an article by R. Sims under the title "The renewable energy response to climate change" where estimated that the photovoltaic conversion could generate between 2.5 and 80 TW, should be devoted to the installation solar panels between 1 and 10% of the land on the planet who are not exploited, assuming a conversion efficiency of 10% . Although the magazine is serious (in its scope), is published by the American Solar Energy Society Inc.. By contrast this assertion, we offer another view: Mr., Lawrence O. Williams, an expert in the field of chemical fuel, explosives and propellants. He worked for the airline industry (Lock Martin, twice winner of the prize Inventor of the Year in the company). He received the award from NASA for Best original application of new technologies for their contribution to the landing of the Viking spacecraft on the surface of Mars. It is a consultant to the Department of Energy U.S. in the area of hydrogen and other alternative energy sources, etc., etc., etc.. Among other things, in his book "An End to Global Warming" gives an account of the potential of photovoltaic conversion in the U.S., concluding that, considering a fotoconversión efficiency of 5%, installing solar panels 90,000 km in 2 surface (1.12% of the country's total area) would cover all its energy demand . The location would be in the states of greater sunlight (Indiana, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California). But beware: Williams warns that the deployment of so many panels would be remarkable climate by increasing the albedo (reflection) of the states involved. These are cooled and the rest of the U.S. is warming.

GCEP's report from Stanford University summer of 2006 (An Assessment of Solar Energy Conversion technologies and Research Opportunities) allows sensibly believe that the requirements of land used for solar farms can significantly lowered since the conversion efficiency photovoltaic is increasing from year to year has reached 40% for tri-heterouniones of GaInP / GaAs / Ge solar with concentration.

Moreover, in the aforementioned report gives an account of other technological options promising to "harvest" (harvesting) solar energy. Some of them little known as the rectenas . The grinding rectenas antennas are capable of capturing directly converting solar energy into direct current (DC). Its size is about the wavelength of radiation to capture, ie between 100 and 1000 nanometers, which allows its integration in massive panels. These panels would be very low reflectivity. Its catchment efficiency exceeds 85%, and the technological challenge is more important in developing the system to rectify frequencies (optical) involved (hundreds of thousands of Terahertzios). Also in pilot phase are Chromatophore panels. These panels are intended to simulate the role chlorophyll to capture solar energy through pairs of microantenas pigmented protein (Chromatophore) connected to centres where the reaction harvest energy is converted into electricity. You can download a book on the latter field, for free (after a very simple registration) here , or find a simple design of a solar cell chlorophyll in the article by JC Ludlow "A solar cell chlorophyl" , published in The Physics Teacher, Vol 40, No 4, pgs 230-232 (1982) .

The catalogue of technological solutions for converting solar energy includes other systems, such as thermoelectric generators (Peltier, Seebecken or Stirling) powered by solar concentrators, solar-thermal plants, etc., etc..

Another "alternative" that is not such. Wind energy is clean, no doubt. Not that is exempted from CO2, although it shares with photovoltaic energy, hydro, tidal and nuclear fission and fusion that the future of CO 2 generated by Kw are due to the division of CO2 caused by the construction of generation plants (and, in case of nuclear or based on hydrogen, generating fuel), divided between energy production estimated for them throughout their life cycle.

Wind energy is clean, except indicated. But there is an alternative as long as its generating capacity is very limited. To become an idea, can be found at the site of the electrical grid Spanish what the current status of Electricity from wind generation, as well as historical data. It summarize, although we recommend to ascertain for themselves.

This is because Eolo is quite capricious: blows when he gave the win and with the intensity that you fancy. The current technology generation demand wind blowing winds with speeds between 5 km / h to 90 km / h. It happens that with current technology, the power generated by a certain type of generator depends on the cube of wind speed.

The wind farms are characterized by sustained average speed of wind. Let's see what the efficiency of production of a modern wind turbine, as the Nordex N90 (rated output of 2.3 MW, there are few so advanced in Galicia). The chart at right shows its power generation based on wind speed.

A wind turbine production grows with the cube of wind speed, but with limits. Until the wind does not reach the 5-10 km / h, their production is ridiculous, grow with the cube of wind speed until it reaches (approximately, depending on the type of turbine) 50 km / h. From this speed, the rotor blades were deformed to maintain the integrity of the generator, which keeps operating with its maximum output to reach (approximately) winds about 90 km / h, which exceeded, the generator should be blocked and stopped .

Technicians qualify a wind farm in different categories, from the type 1 to type 6. Different types of park are classified according to the average sustained wind speeds, lower the lower the index. In a park type 1, only occasionally can expect sustained winds of 20 km / h, and the index rises as the park, the expectation of high winds at speeds will be higher. The following table shows the efficiency of generating different types of parks for certain wind speeds sustained by reference to a park type 6 (with a speed "moderate" wind):

clarify the meaning of the last column: at 29.5 km / h, a mill Nordex N90 generates 2.2 MW, but if the wind speed fell to 23 km / h, would require two mills (doubling the length of the park) to get the same power as 20 km / h, multiply by four the matter. But Iberdrola Renewable or Eurovento gives absolutely equal the length of a wind farm, petroglyphs and mother who has to be destroyed, birds, horses, flora and everything… just follow your God: The profit and loss account.

True that Milton Friedman argue that Do not worry, be happy, technological development and the sacrosanct market already achieved that these limitations are overcome.

But you look.: This is not the case. The estimate of the scientific potential of generating all winds on the planet , regardless of their speed and altitude of the altitude and location at which they are (in the Himalayas, Antarctica, Tibet The Artic Ocean Glacial or in the middle of the Pacific) could not overcome the 1200 Terawatios. That's much more of global energy demand! , Insist our beloved Milton. Because Mr. Friedman ignores the challenge of harnessing the 1% of theoretical wind potential, or get 12 terawatios energy.

Another account of the old: each Nordex N90 consists of a tower between 90 and 110 meters high, 3 blades 45 metres long, an alternator and a high-voltage converter, requiring about 150 tons of steel, 10 tons of copper, 30 tons of fiberglass and about 1000 tons of concrete for the base.

The wind is not reliable, because Eolo is very capricious, and energy demand has guidelines that often do not coincide with the vagaries of diosecillo mofletudo. Some peak hours that do not correspond with Katabatic wind (which are the most "regular", geostrophic are even more capricious). The industry is not going to adapt their production to the whims of diosecillo in question, nor you. domestic consumption of your home. If you. had a wind turbine on his house (electric) and had to cook in their vitroceramic when the wind does not blow, Cage was in diosecillo (in) competence in the matter, how we do? And if it's cold and cabroncete of Eolo is hoarse, would have to resign to make heating or lighting a light bulb, and think seriously re-payable to Union painful, certainly yes.

That is why wind power generation derives its production at all times to the grid at high voltage, which is consumed by its network of distribution according to general demand (in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, France, Luxembourg… The energy market is highly globalized). The high-voltage grid attempts to regulate the production as demand exists in every moment, both the generation of hydro, wind, thermal or combined cycle, with more and less: you can not stop a nuclear reactor as well, or a thermal combined cycle.

But as wind energy is clean and cheap, we will not be us who postulate its rejection. But it conditioned its implementation based on a number of considerations. War is a very serious matter to be left in the hands of the military, said Churchill. It also power generation in the current context is a very serious matter to be left in the hands of power, we say. And we mean both the nuclear (and it is the turn) as the wind or any of the "alternative".

The production of wind energy is a business, in part thanks to subsidies and also the market shares CO2. The apostles of Milton have managed to produce commodification shit! And until we seem well if it were not helped by arguments of "public utility" or wrapped with subsidies (also public), complemented by forcible expropriation of land (communal or private), obviating any consideration landscape, environmental or socio-cultural interests . You. never consume "clean energy" with the current distribution system network. You will consume kilowatt hour, of which the percentage of clean kilowatts will be "exactly" the percentage of clean kilowatts injected into the network by generating industries. Wind energy itself. But you would have. to be sure that wind energy consumed when production permits. This would deny their production industries injected into the network as a fundamental part of your business.

Of course, adjust local production to local demand is an imponderable. The centers distributed generation should be interconnected through a switching system in each plant production that derive a network interconnection surplus production to be consumed every point where local production does not reach demand instant.

Thus, four mills last generation (3 MW power rating) would meet the energy demand of about 1,000 households (considering an efficiency of 25% and consumption 3kW per household) at cost price if the initiative is public.

For show something else: As of 2005, generation costs of MWh of electricity depending on the type of Central was as follows:

(These costs fluctuate according to the policies of subsidies and energy strategies of various governments. They do not include the costs of issuance, transfer or purchase emission of greenhouse gases).

The anticipation of the evolution of these costs can make up Rappel (no mistake) as long as coal, gas and uranium are limited resources (such as Milton Friedman is dead fortunately, we allow this "impertinence") prices for electricity generation in the near future based on these sources tend to the top of the table (or exceed). However, the wind is widespread (and fall) to a minimum in the table (likewise for solar, but their cost is "abusive" and will be for many years).

Only hydropower can be generated on demand, opening or closing the "tap" of the generator. But to tell you that Villar Mir closing the tap because of its hydroelectric energy at this time… And what will my children eat? Responded on… All companies involved in the energy business, everything that can generate, throughout the time they can, because they are companies whose sole purpose is its profit and loss account. Flag campaigns to fill your ears with phrases we all would like to believe: "IberTrola renewable", "Check to green energy", "Cars greener"… But they are more than a false bill of EUR 6.

To sample a button. Back to Spanish electricity grid and see the electrical output of 12/12/2007:

Although the Spanish wind farm, have an installed capacity of 13,322 MW we see that the energy produced today, ranges from a maximum of 4,502 and a minimum of 1,392 Mw. In other words, less than a third of the installed power. consult you more days and see as the overall performance round a quarter of the installed power.

The global wind potential is enormous. According C. Archer and M. Jacobson , the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the U. Stanford, the global distribution of winds of class 3 (over 24 km / h) to 80 metres above sea level represents a wind potential of 72 TW. With today's technology, capturing 20% of this potential cover (low cost) global energy needs. You can see maps speeds to 80 metres high and the full report made at Stanford University .

Hence, the wind power sector also makes its accounts. As an example, you can find the latest report of the European Wind Energy Association (2007), under Title " Delivering Energy and Climate Solutions " .

The European Union has taken a favourable position to the generation based on renewable energies. With regard to wind power, expected move from a current generation of 56 GW by the end of 2007 to 180 GW by 2020 and 300 GW in 2030 (20% of the gross demand of electricity in the EU).

But the bet European wind carries obligations to the sector in terms of networking capabilities that are being discussed, not only as it relates to a joint regulation legislation throughout the EU, but because it might affect the monopoly de facto top players in the sector (without affecting the manufacturing industry equipment, and that extraordinarily beneficial to consumers). The crux of the matter is that seeks to promote production and consumption distributed on the spot for most of the energy generated. But this talk later.

Nuclear fission:

But the fact is that the nuclear lobby is postulated as an alternative, and forcefully. In his favour is playing, in terms of CO2 certainly is an "alternative" relatively clean. Also that uranium reserves, and recycling of plutonium in new plants, would lengthen the expectations of supply security for many years. There is a wide disparity in figures regarding world reserves of uranium. There are some who aims reserves for 40 years, if all the world's energy production be based on this fuel, pointing up the reserves for several hundred years. The differences in these figures are that some computed only uranium cheap to extract, purify and oxidize to be exploited at present and the abundance of natural uranium in the earth (including oceans).

We know that fossil fuels will run out within a maximum of 50 years at the current pace of consumption, making it much more competitive prices to exploit uranium deposits exist.

The problem of nuclear power and radioactive waste are these wastes are generated throughout the production chain.

1. In Phase quarrying, obtained uranium 238 , which is a radioactive element of medium and low activity. Almost always accompanied by other radioactive materials such as Poland, Cesium, etc., which are also of medium and low activity. To extract it, we must remove large amounts of land, grinding and purified to obtain uranium 238 which will be processed later. This process, radioactive contamination all around the land mines, as many radioactive elements are not recoverable in the extractive process, but did not represent any danger in their original state, underground. This phase, by the way, when using conventional machinery, emits CO 2 into the atmosphere.

2. Then we must enrich uranium 238 . For a chemical process, is produced enriched uranium dioxide U 235 , which can fuel the nuclear reactor, which has already introduced high-level radioactive.

3. In the nuclear reactor, the fission reaction, in addition to producing energy, new waste (actinides) of very high activity and lifetime (thousands of years) and U 235 unburned very difficult and reprocessing.

4. The decommissioning of the plant once completed their life cycle is also a pollutant, highly radioactive material that must be neutralized and economically involved an outlay of several billion euros. The cost of dismantling, should be included in the cost per kWh produced.

If this waste could be eliminated, and security of nuclear generation industry was effectively controlled without doubt that the core of nuclear fission could be an alternative to global energy problem rather than the medium term, in addition to effectively mitigating the very serious problem contributing to climate change emissions of greenhouse gases.

Economically speaking, the "alternative" nuclear feasible ... if not add to the prices of production costs of removal or rendering harmless waste. In the U.S., were stored in 2003 some 80,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste from 103 nuclear plants operating. PON in the exhaust path toward the sun, at market prices (Milton goes for you!) Would cost less than one and a half trillion dollars . In addition each year generated more than 10,000 tons of radioactive waste from medium and low activity.

The cost of a product level, it must incorporate all the expenses needed for their manufacture. In other words, incorporate "external costs" to production costs. How will incorporate these costs to the price per kWh for nuclear? ... Simply join or not join the taste of industry participants. For example, the central complex at Sellafield (Great Britain) and The Hague (Brittany) eliminated for many years discharges happily throughout the North Atlanta, including the pit Galician Atlantic. Know you. they both have a highly complex military are suppliers of nuclear material to feed the military deterrent British and French. Of course, also generate electricity The pasta is pasta!. In addition to dump waste at sea, are responsible for 80% of the radioactive affectation of the population of Western Europe. Read these studies in Wikipedia and Global Security .

The strong mobilisation of civil society that was generated in Galicia in the early eighties against radioactive discharges forced the so-called London Convention, which is attached to the International Maritime Organization in 1993 to ban nuclear contamination to the marine environment. Remember to Sirius, the Xurelo, the Arosa and the Pleamar I .

But the policy of nuclear discharges to the seas and oceans on the planet, until 1993, was simply appalling. To clarify the following graphics, say that the radioactive activity is determined by the number of transformations which suffers a radioactive element per unit of time and international unity is the Becquerelio (Bq) 1 = 1 Bq per second transformation. The radioactive discharges into the seas and oceans on the planet are reflected in The following chart on the left (click on it to enlarge). The unit is the PBq (1 PBq 15 = 10 Bq).

In this another graphic on the right shows the relative contribution by country to radioactive discharges into the ocean Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. Emphasizes the contribution of the United Kingdom in North Atlanta, representing a 77.5% of the total. Click on the chart to enlarge

And finally discharges of radioactive solid waste in northeast Atlanta, Cantabrian Sea and Baltic in TBq. (1 = 10 TBq 12 Bq.) Look at the pit Atlantic. (35,880 TBq). Click on the chart to enlarge them.

At present, the various governments, agencies and intergovernmental organizations recognize the need to incorporate these external costs to the price of nuclear energy… but with the small mouth. In fact, the cost table level for various forms of power generation, nuclear energy is the cheapest (between 2 and 5 cents on Kwh).

Waste management is cheap cheap Spanish. The high-level radioactive waste (RRA) or stored "temporarily" at the station, either in deposits (image of the central warehouse Trillo, to the right.) Or in swimming pools, or after being encapsulated or vitrified, take the deposit at El Cabril, where he also stored waste medium or low activity from medical purposes, etc., etc..

This is the most economical management of the potential to date. A temporary solution, of course, "guaranteed" for 100 years, pending final settlement is expected to provide us with science and technology… Do?

By the way, El Cabril is a surface reservoir , not deep, between so-called "systems A Storage T emporal C entralizado "(ATC). Look at some pictures of the facilities of El Cabril (Cordova) below:

Align="center">

The Cabril. Compare with the ATC average depth edition:

Can find this and much more in this Comprehensive Plan Of Radioactive Waste .

To date, the only thing that is postulated as an alternative to ATC is the PGA: A Storage G eológico P rofundo (AGP ), That is, literally bury the RAA and RBMAs thorough geological strata under which "guarantee" security permanent storage of waste. But this is another half-truth. The American friend is running a facility at Yucca Mountain PGA, and another in our Finnish Oulkiluoto, but is not expected to be operational until 2015-2020. There are no longer "stores". Its security can not guarantee anybody. If the PGA is so safe, why not implemented one in Beverley Hills or Malibu Beach? Maybe because they are not geologically suitable locations? Course. Nor is ideal La Moraleja in front of El Cabril, obviously.

Some of them will say that this temporary storage is valid until they are ready for the Generation IV nuclear power plants, closed-loop, which reprocessing actinides generated in the combustion cycle as new fuel. This is the fourth generation plants generate most of the nuclear fuel they consume, or at least not generate radioactive waste because the neutralization with fast neutron absorption. Do What? Lie again. At what price? We are selling a future technology nonexistent, and few likely to materialize at a reasonable cost. Sure, it's possible to stabilize the radioactive actinides through a fast neutron absorption. But generating fast neutron is very expensive, and always will be. Today, demands that the neutrons generated in a particle accelerator, a cyclotron to accelerate alpha particles which in turn, following an interaction, release fast neutrons. The neutrons are neutral particles (as its name suggests) that can not be manipulated but indirectly: they can not be accelerated by any force field known. Then, apart from the neutron "slow" being generated in some reactions (type nuclear bombardment of solids with high-energy charged particles or electromagnetic energy absorption by certain atoms or molecules), Forget fast neutron unless they resort to large installations of high-energy physics. Carísimo.

None of energy "alternatives" is currently known alternative alone for global energy demand. Each sector "alternative" we are also interested bored with his faith in technological development in its sector to run as "energy future". What if more powerful wind turbines here, that if photovoltaic cells more efficient and cheaper over there, biofuels produced in bulk and cheap based on micro Acull that if bioengineering applied to the generation of hydrogen,… of course, are expected remarkable progress in all these sectors, but we can not deliver any particularly well and we need them now. His talk is concerned at times full of danger. See, for example, the enthusiasm with which the lobby tries to promote biofuels regardless of their particular business that generate famines, or the heroic former helmsman Rainbow Warrior , Russ George, now president of a "Ecoempresas "Bioengineering call Plancktos (USA), which states:" can save the world and incidentally, earn some milloncejos ". Read these stories published in the journal Public: 1 and 2 .

We offer the conclusions of Professor Walter H. Hermann, a researcher at the G lobal C limate and E nergy P roject (GCEP ), Stanford University (California), published recently (W. Hermann, "Quantifying overall exergy resources" , Energy, 31 (12), 2006, p. 1685-1702).

Professor. Hermann makes a complete overhaul flow exergy on Earth for the purpose of estimating the future availability of any form of energy on the planet. First, know that the concept of exergía refers to energy available for transformation, to do so by combining the two principles of thermodynamics.

Begins with a detailed account of all energy sources on the planet, its streams and its use based on existing technologies. Basically what it comes to say is that all the energy that can be transformed into the Earth over its estimated life (5000 million years) comes from four primary sources:

In this table, we should pay attention to the column of secondary sources (transformations of the relevant primary from natural processes) and the times of renewal of its consumption. In principle, as seen, is the energy from the sun which offers more reservations. The sunlight we receive takes most of the quota solar energy, and its time for renewal is virtually instantaneous. This radiation fed systems and photovoltaic generation termosolar. Part of solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, leading to energy associated with the winds. Another portion is invested in the process of evaporation of water, after condensation and precipitation, rivers and feeds allows the hydroelectric development. A fraction of the direct and diffuse solar radiation reaching the earth's surface is invested in creating the ocean thermal gradient (Unlike temperatures in the water column). Another fraction is transformed through photosynthesis in biomass, which we exploit food or energy. Part of biomass accumulated in past geological eras is stored in the form of fossil fuels.

With regard to energy reserves as a result of gravitational interaction Moon-Earth-Sun, we can always count on them while the celestial dynamics do not change radically. The tides carried a small fraction of that daily energy potential.

Geothermal reserves are calculated on the basis of an average temperature of the core and mantle of about 2700 K, due both to internal pressure due to gravity on Earth as a fission internal radionúcleos. The flow of geothermal energy into the Earth's crust, however, is rather "small". With regard to nuclear energy potential of the planet (immense, as shown) is computed on the basis only of deuterium marine reserves, because the amount of energy potential of fissile radionúcleos on Earth is barely significant compared to the potential of deuterium ( Fusion). While the latter is a finite resource (non-renewable), its enormous potential as postulated as a virtually inexhaustible energy source for mankind, which, moreover, like any species, survived on Earth just a few million more years. What a pity that the technology has no response to its use: what we have not even raised "harvest" deuterium present in the oceans (one millionth treintaipico per unit mass, or about 30 grams per tonne of water) beyond the anticipatory ideas of Arthur C. Clark and others lucid visionary. In addition, before proceeding to the development of methods of extraction of deuterium in the oceans will have to prove the feasibility of thermonuclear fusion reaction deuterium + deuterium -> + helium energy.

A Hermann only lacks transform the whole mass of the Earth (6x10 24 Kg) in energy, according to the known formula E = mc 2 , which would give us about 7.8 x10 41 joules. Mucha, a lot of energy!

-So you are worried that down there? -- Milton tells St. Peter, who bears a migraine you cagas and not knowing where to get hold no more Baril NeoCon of his illustrious guest.

In each transformation from primary to secondary source, and until they use, there is a loss of exergy . Hermann then analyzes flows exergía in all the transformations of the energy cycle on Earth. The full flow diagram exergía on Earth is at your disposal here .

The exergía the solar cycle is as follows. Of the 160,000 TW solar incident, the atmosphere into outer space reflects some 34,000 TW. The atmosphere absorbs some 31,000 TW, which together with the contribution it receives radiation coming from outer space to frequency microwave (corresponding to a temperature of background radiation in the universe of 2.7 K), leading to a power associated with the winds about 870 TW. The winds, in turn, transferred power to swell from about 60 TW, of which hardly take anything. Of the remaining 810 TW, current technology and at this time, get some exploit 0.06 TW (global wind power production). Finally, to reach the earth's surface about 86,000 TW, of whom some 41,000 are invested in TW evaporation processes that will lead to a hydraulic energy 0.36 TW . Some 43,000 are invested in TW warming of the surface, contributing to the creation of ocean thermal gradient (GTO, ie temperature differences in ocean water column)), with a potential 100TW (untapped). And then, another 5,000 TW escape into outer space for reflection on the surface of the Earth. These last two TW 48,000 are usable in the transformation of energy through catchment technologies and fotoconversión solar thermal, but the current use does not exceed TW 0016.

If they have the full flow diagram exergía, do not worry if the sum of individual contributions from the 160,000 TW total solar radiation incident not given the total. Not that Hermann does not know adding: remember that each transformation is lost in a fraction of energy.

The other primary energy sources offer significantly lower quantities. The tides bring about 3.7 TW, while the flow of geothermal energy into the Earth's crust contributes another 32 TW. And as we said, stocks of fusionable materials are immense. On the latter, we believe that everything is said. Failure to do technologically feasible thermonuclear fusion.

The buffet energy we have left of the primary sources comes to be:

This table lack the contribution of biomass fuels and generated from it are derived. The processes of photosynthesis leading to the generation of biomass consumed about 90 TW of solar radiation. The reserves stored in the biomass of plants involves a total of about 30x10 21 joules of energy. Its traditional consumption for power generation (burning of firewood for heating, cooking, etc.) represents 1.2 TW throughout the planet, that is not enough. The current biofuel industry generates 0.15 TW , fossil and biomass reserves are estimated at approximately 270x10 21 Joules for coal, 110x10 21 Joules oil, 50x10 21 Joules and gas 200x10 21 July hydrates methane. The exploitation of fossil fuels leads to generations of 3.6 TW based on coal, TW 5 petroleum and 3.2 TW Natural gas. The methane hydrates are not exploited.

Already we can get an idea of the figures to shuffle. Faced with a demand for more than 20 TW to within a couple of decades, and with no primary source is negligible, we note that the gravitational energy flow "little" can bring to solving the global energy problem alone. With regard to use geothermal, profitable technology called heat flow perforations in the earth's crust at least 1 km (except, of course, areas where there is high surface geothermal activity: land in the vicinity of areas with volcanic activity ). It does not seem sensible to expect from geothermal power plants a comprehensive solution to energy demand. But it can solve the problem locally. As an example, Iceland is a country whose 400,000 inhabitants have heating and energy self-except for automotive fuel-source geothermal. Tapping geothermal is also noticeable in New Zealand.

To sum: of the above we know that the global economic system is extremely unfair when it comes to sharing wealth and distribution of consumer goods between the population. We know that development of the global economy se basa en el consumo de huge amounts of energy, and it must be cheap. We know that developing countries are increasing their economic growth rates very high, demanding more energy… and we know that fossil fuels are exhausted. To maintain the rates of development we need, therefore new sources to meet demand. Where to look? Already know this: where they exist. And what will this Mass: you have done the counting of energy resources on Earth.

The Sun is, with a lot of difference, the primary source of energy capable of maintaining sustainable development (without quotation marks) in terms raised. The flow solar energy is divided into a set of secondary sources that must be exploited more efficiently . We can reasonably expect more return on technology use wind, solar (photovoltaic and thermal), geothermal and marine. Forecasts (very conservative) of the International Energy Agency forecast the passage of a total production of renewables (excluding hydropower) from a total of 36 GW in 2002 to about 214 GW in 2030 (1.000GW = 1TW) but need 20 TW on that date.

From the foregoing, we know that the current energy consumption is about 15 TW, and demand is growing exponentially. We know that energy must be cheap. The primary energy sources in the que se basa development of the global economy are fossil fuels, and they are exhausted. The energy dependence of the first world should be streamlined. The premise that leads the studies presented: "You can not put a stop to economic development" or what amounts to the same "You can not reduce the current level of consumption" , are acts of faith that none of these studies desarrolla.y with which we do not commune.

In the previous chapter, we saw that in 2002, the use of alternative energy represented a 0.25% of global energy consumption and that forecasts for 2030 put it at 1.07%. There is no need to be science, to understand the insufficiency of these measures. The scientific community, as we have seen, is virtually unanimous on this issue and governments handle internal reports do not leave any doubt. In this regard, it should be noted that conducted by Sir Nicholas Stern , a former World Bank economist and now head of the British Government Economic Service and adviser for Development and Change Cllmático, speaking of the impact of climate change on the global economy. These are the conclusions of this report :

In 2004, is published, also Science Article " Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies " (stabilization wedges: Resolving the problem during climate the next 50 years using current technologies) (Science, vol. 305, pp 968-972). The sign Professors S. Pacala (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) and R. Socolow (Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering), University of Princetown. In the summary which heads the work say:

Wedge stabilizing emissions

Our Socolow and Pacala that is not "create" on climate change, but who know that climate change is underway. Their study begins by showing the evolution of CO 2 in the atmosphere from the records available (since 1954). The graph shows these records, as well as the "best" of trends of growth of emissions until 2055, which means accepting a rate of growth of emissions linear and equal to historical average between 1955-2005 (the 1.5 % Per annum). This forecast (insist, conservative) would mean that in 2055 would double the current emission rate of 7 to 14 GtC / yr (1GtC = billion tons of carbon) and the concentration of CO 2 atmospheric reach the 850 parts per million (ppm). To achieve that in 2055 begins a downward trend of CO 2 to achieve a stabilisation around 450-550 ppm (slightly less than twice the existing before beginning of the industrial age), the proposed strategy is the elimination of growth of emissions, keeping them in the current 7GtC/año. The triangle stabilization entails removing exactly 1 / 3 of the total projected emissions between 2004-2054. To achieve this goal, Pacala & Socolow the triangle divided into 7 stabilization "wedges" remediation equal.

Note that we are not talking about Kyoto, Pacala & Socolow, intend to maintain that not reduce CO 2 into the atmosphere, that is, we are below the claims of Kyoto.

By the way, incorporated into the price of power generation costs by emissions of CO 2 at a price of $ 100 per tonne carbon ($ / tC), a wedge would be 2.5 trillion (European) dollars of savings.

Apparently what we easy right? We just need 7 wedges and we have 16 options. But be careful with these wedges 16: immediacy and require common sense and all are very difficult to implement ... Do we have any alternative? The immediacy has already expired, because the spots should have been started to implement in 2005.

All will agree to use the wedge efficiency improvement in consumer automotive : to halve fuel consumption per kilometre not hurt nearly nobody, with the sole exception of the sectors of mining, refining, distribution and sale of fuel, which would see their income reduced by lower demand. However, this option involves a conversion of the automotive industry which should have already begun. Let us put our feet on the ground: we live where we live, and not in Utopia. Will that subsidize the General Motors-Audi WW-Seat, BMW, Renault, Honda Motors, etc. .?... What are these itching to me walk the body?

Now, for example, the wedge wind . The wedge can be filled with wind turbines 800,000 Nordex type-2, 5 MW, or 50 multiplied by the power of the current wind farm in 50 years.

And the wedge consisting of save on travel ? Demands Changes urbanisation, logistics, telematics, transportation, etc., so that the current system of production-consumption not collapse and that is sacred is not it?

But transport and mobility are a basic factor of the problem. As Calvo said Manuel Salazar, the current situation is " product, first, a territorial model based on the production of remoteness. Production of remoteness that makes the territory of the area in a swarm of roads where everything intended to be connected with everything. That is the main factor explaining the unsustainability of mobility scheme agglomeration: the growing need to travel more and more miles to access. "

" Suffice it to say that daily take place in Seville and its area more than 2 million and a half of travel in private cars to go a lot of kilometres (12,580,962) equivalent to a distance of 33 trips to the moon. Annually, this means a lot of miles accumulated some 23 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun. That is the primary factor of unsustainability in the transport system, namely increasing need for mobility of production. ". ( Environmental sustainability and ecological footprint in metropolitan areas ).

What say about the conversion of thermal power generation to take technology carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) ? This technology involves capturing carbon emissions from thermal power (coal, gas or combined cycle) and bury them deep or into the ocean. Some central CCS exploit the capture to recycle carbon synthetic fuels (synfuels for Anglos), or generate hydrogen in chemical reactors . In any case, carbon recycling has not buried in deposits of ad hoc , with certain specifications geologic composition of the land or release it deep in the ocean. The burial ocean (the largest natural carbon sink on the planet) can present a problem, since as of today do not know the full cycle of carbon in the ocean. And the supposed burial restrictions geological location of the plants with CCS in certain places. Of course that place restrictions also affect the central CCS with kidnapping ocean (must be at the bottom of the sea, as well as collectors of abduction have to release the carbon deep-ocean additional restrictions on possible locations of these plants).

The central Sleipner West (Trondheim, Norway) is the pioneer in the effective demonstration of CCS technology to the point that the geological storage unit took its name (sleipners). Daily separates and buried 2,800 tons of CO 2 with a tax savings by issuing 1 million Norwegian kroner every day (meaning that the charge CO 2 in Norway is just over $ 53 / tC, just over half of the charge in the U.S., but it appears that Viking awareness is much stronger than the Yankee and the low rate of taxation is not an obstacle to the implementation to eliminate its toxic. generic information can be found at Wikipedia and economics .

Another wedge is the nuclear . It would provide an immediate doubling its current generation capacity. Fortunately, it is unworkable. But the lobby will seize the situation to increase their participation as far as possible, calling for subsidies, of course, cursed itching!, Are killing me and increasing problem of waste in the same percentage. But the latter is not your problem becomes ours. Is Allergy perhaps? .

Another wedge is halt deforestation and reverse the process: reforest . The wedge would, for example, stop tropical deforestation and planting 300 million hectares of new forest (more than 6 times the Spanish territory). But díganselo you. Mr. Lula da Silva, whose Minister for Environment, Marina Silva just resign weary of the lack of interest by Lula enforce their commitments to preserving the Amazon and radically change its" priorities ". Although he is also right. Da Silva, in his view that the environmental problem must resolve who has created, and that Brazil has as much right to deforest exactly the same percentage of their territory for agricultural use-wood that historically made by Germany, Spain or the United States. UU. of americas. Seen like this, not without reason. Look at you.: According to figures from Pacala & Socolow, if Amazon forests capture 20% of global emissions of CO 2 , the Norwegian affordable price (50 $ / tC for withdrawing 20% 7 GtC/año- = 1.4 GtC / yr) should be put to an annual quantity neckline close to 70,000 million dollars be allocated to countries with sovereignty over the Amazon in exchange for preserving their forests for the benefit of all. They can find information on Scientific Library Online and Carbon Trade Watch .

Let it here. We do not dare to comment on the wedge of biofuels that would allocate 1 / 6 of all arable land on Earth for this purpose, to resolve 1 / 7 of the overall problem !. and step plunge in the third world famine. (Can be scabies? bite melanomas?) .

We want to be positive and Pacala & Socolow, but we exceeded our skepticism at times. They warn us of the difficulties of setting up each wedge remediation, but insisting (rightly) that each and every one of them are within our reach: they are technologically possible. As a result of his work concluded that:

And we add

1. If adopted the nuclear option, it should be taxing waste management at its real price (it is).
2. Must be put in waist all the operating companies in the energy sector.

His immoral business will have to finish .

Our points 1 and 2 are inspired by our beloved Milton : we apply the "market logic". (If scabies is tasteless) . Take example of American friend, father legislator in the 80 principle of "polluters pay" , approving in 1990 the Oil Pollution Act , which requires companies shipping the obligation to double-hull tankers and a security deposit of 1,000 million dollars bail after civil liability for damage that could cause discharges by ships. In the Exxon Mobil is meager 4,004 million dollars by the Exxon Valdez spill. Since then there have been no oil spill in U.S. waters. Why can not we do the same with nuclear operators?

Seven wedges, seven drinks bitter for a first world solidarity. But something must be done and do it now. In an informal chat, Socolow, when asked about the tremendous difficulty of implementing these wedges, said:

There are other small palliatives. A wedge is the most promoting energy saving , but a drastic savings and determined. It seems the parrot chocolate, but it is not. The apparent spread of compulsory and small measures to improve the efficiency of energy consumption (thermal insulation of homes, appliances and energy saving light bulbs, energy support systems of heating and hot water, reduced energy losses in the distribution of electricity, etc., etc.) added a new wedge. And the major contribution to this wedge is the decline in energy losses in the distribution of electricity. All agencies advisers governments and administrations agree on this point. Recognize notable losses in the electrical distribution lines:

And suggest a solution: