Dear Sir:
Dr Gerry Wolff (Letter: Concentrating Solar Power, 2007-04-23) clearly illustrates the difference between scientists and engineers.
Scientists will make claims of what is 'possible' and what 'can be'. Engineers, on the other hand, must take into account practical considerations of what is feasible and affordable. A vast network of solar arrays and HVDC technology that has never been demonstrated on a global scale is no substitute for proven existing technologies. While I admit it is possible to harness vast amount of power from the sun and wind, the present reality means that in the short to medium term we must continue to rely on conventional sources of energy. Even so, this doesn't absolve us of any obligation to do it as cleanly and efficiently as possible.
Here's the reality: In the US, fossil fuels account for over 70% of the electricity. Nuclear energy for 20%. Solar? Less than one-tenth of one percent. Add to this, that worldwide demand is expected to double by 2025. The problem we face is that we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels while increasing the energy supply. This task is difficult enough, even with a dramatic expansion of nuclear power. Clearly, with the threat of climate change upon us, we should be focusing our resources on replacing fossil fuel use. And, that means we need every bit of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear energy that we can get.
Michael Stuart |
