To the Editor:
It’s coming, a carbon energy-free future. Automobiles, trucks, boats, everything now using petroleum products will run by electricity, so says our government. And by doing so, we will help clean up the air, giving us a more healthy atmosphere, maybe reducing HAGW, too. But, at what cost?
Environmentalists encourage the use of electricity, solar, and wind to produce electricity. Accordingly, we would depend on batteries to provide portable energy. Batteries that are produced using rare earth minerals, requiring huge amounts of energy.
Where will that energy come from? They would cite wind, solar, and nuclear sources as the most available. Ludicrous! Windmills now barely produce enough energy for small communities. Unless some remarkable development occurs to make them more efficient, this is not a viable option.
Solar panels would have to cover huge amounts of land and are vulnerable to damaging weather or no continuous sunshine.
Nuclear-produced energy requires considerable amounts of water and produces waste that must be stored safely. There is always a danger of accidents, man made or natural (like the tsunami produced one in Japan).
What’s left to produce batteries: carbon-based fuels. And there we are, full circle. Scientists must work tirelessly to find an acceptable solution. Maybe, the development of hydrogen as a viable fuel from water.
We must not rush to make electricity our sole source of energy until the ‘perfect’ fuel source.
Yes, electricity is the energy source of the future, but it is imperative that the energy to produce it does not defeat the benefits.
retired master sergeant