Edgar Ocampo Tellez: • Decir que las fuentes renovables de energía son inagotables es falso: tienen limitantes técnicas, físicas, y problemas de intermitencia. • El aumento exponencial de consumo de energía es muy reciente. Surge después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. En los últimos ocho mil años la humanidad estuvo conformada por menos de 300 millones de habitantes, pero hoy somos siete mil millones. El potencial renovable de nuestro territorio es de 44 terawatts de energía hidráulica, 87 de eólica, 200 de solar y 52 de geotérmica; en total, 400 terawatts hora anuales; pero nos faltarían 600 más. “Ése es el predicamento en el que se encuentra el modelo energético mexicano, y no es de fácil solución”.
Ronald Surz, investment advisor: There are two main kinds of currencies - a) paper money printed by the government and b) energy, the only real currency. Energy from fossil fuels and nuclear has made the world a much better place. Paper money comes and goes. It never lasts and when it goes away, there is a lot of pain. Energy, the only real currency, is misused, squandered and very poorly planned also. This article discusses currency, economics and finance in the United States. The discussion applies to other countries as well. What will the world be like when paper currencies and energy no longer function well?
Mark Mills, economics21.org: Not satisfied with the mere claim that solar and wind are reaching parity with the costs of conventional energy technologies, green enthusiasts are upping the ante claiming that by “2030, the cost [of solar] could be so near to zero it will effectively be free.” But no amount of research or torturing of reality, however, will lead to that result. Both physics and history offer instructive lessons. That scenario has played out in Germany and Britain, both far further down the green path, leading to radically higher electricity prices there — 200% to 300% higher than in America.
Bjorn Lomborg - When a “solution” to a problem causes more damage than the problem, policymaking has gone awry. That’s where we often find ourselves with global warming today. Actihttp://www.efn-usa.org/administrator/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemsvist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.