Artful Dodger:

> The reason is sounds like a hoax is because it is a hoax.

OK, let's say that global warming is a hoax. Does that mean that it is ok to continue to release carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the way we are doing now? Is it OK to continue to increase gas emissions from fossil fuels? It is a hoax, does that mean it is OK to continue polluting?

Artful Dodger:

> I know that there are BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for green energy producers. They are no different than other so-called greedy fossil fuel energy companies. And in spite of what the Geek claims, the question isn't between an energy source that produces LESS pollution, it's about one energy source that works, and another that is yet to prove it can meet demand (it can't - and you'll be dead before it can).

Are green energy producers greedy? Sure they are. It is greed that drives capitalism.

The question is, can green energy meet the demand?

In the UK 7% of electricity consumes is produced from renewable sources. In the USA electricity generation from renewable sources has now reached 10%. Japan also produces 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. Germany produces 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. France produces 14%.

In Denmark 29% of the energy is produced from wind power and renewable energy sources. The Danish transition occurred in the last 15 years or so, and "Green" energy generation is increasing at a rate of about 1% per year. It might seem like slow progress, but then their reliance on fossil fuels decreases every day.

In Canada 64.5% of the electricity consumed is produced from renewable energy sources. Considering Canada's long, dark winters, it is a good record. However, the public perception among Canadians is that the government is not doing enough.

Then, we look at Iceland where 100% of its electricity generation is from renewable resources with geothermal energy being the dominant form of green energy. Iceland can do this on account of high volcanic activity, high incidence of geisers and other surface geothermal vents, and a low population. Hower, it shows that where there is a will there is a way.

The myth that renewable (i.e. green) sources cannot meet the demand is probbly more true in motor vehicles. It is in this big sector that fossil fuels still dominate. However, if more electricity is generated from renewable sources, then consumers will slowly switch to electrical vehicles for daily transport while slowly phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.

We should also note that the USA consumes a lot more electricity per person than many other countries. Renewable sources do have a difficult time meeting the high demand in the USA. Renewable energy will become the dominant form of energy production as oil becomes more expensive and North Americans begin to rethink their energy consumption habits.

China is another country that has a hard time adopting renewable energy. The fast rate of economic expansion has meant that demand for electricity is far in excess of the supply. To meet that demand China uses their main natural resource, coal, and imports vast quantities of oil from neighboring Kazakhstan and Russia.

What we can learn from this is that the situation is complex. The viability of green energy sources is affected by population distribution, weather patterns, geological patterns, geography, water availability, economic growth, etc. Under some circumstances green energy has worked very well. In other cases fossil fuels can meet the demand.

I suppose it is a matter of willingness to change and willingness to invest. One thing is certain. Whether global warming is true factor or not, we should make every effort to reduce pollution.

Artful Dodger:

> Not at 100% levels. And it won't drive our cars. At the moment, you need both types of energy. And you can't stop producing oil when you don't have in place a replacement. It's that simple.

Not with the current technology. We still need oil for motor vehicles. There is no current technology that can replace the diesel engine in a tractor-trailer carrying tons of cargo. The day might come when we will. In the meantime we still need oil.

But electricity is something else. The problem is that people think in very selfish, nationalistic terms.

If Iceland can make 100% of its energy from geothermal sources, North America should aim at developing a similar source in places where it is viable. It would be impossible to do that in Saskatchewan or Florida, but it might be viable in volcanic regions. Electricity could be generated in Guatemala (a very volcanic country) and redistributed north through Mexico and the USA. It would help Guatemala and Mexico develop thier economy while the USA would get a respite from some of the oil dependence.

Unfortunately, everybody gets nationalistic. The USA has the capital to invest, but not the willingness to do so while oil remains cheap. Mexicans will want to make a big profit, as will Guatemalans. Guatemala completely lacks the infrastructure and the capital. All in all everybody will keep using oil until it becomes so expensive that building geothermal plants in Central America becomes cheaper.

Once energy is generated efficiently from a renewable source, it can be used to generate synthetic fuels. For example, electricity can be used to power a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst and make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. Methanol can be synthesized too and used in fuel cells to power motor vehicles.

The big challenge right now is the lack of infrastructure and capital. Many of the technologies are there, but their cost is too great when compared to oil extraction and refining. We could replace oil at this point, but the cost would be too great. Nobody wants to pay $2000 per month for an electricity bill.