Energy Sources
Introduction
Here is a site that provides a counterpoint to the views frequently presented in typical media. Sources for the comments found here will be referenced when they are readily available.
This site is felt to be of value during an era when misinformation is rampant. When hysteria is used as a technique to produce revenue, and to produce support for envirnmental issues. Bounds are needed on the enthusiasm for efforts tied to environmentalism, as many efforts are prohibitively expensive, and in many cases, counterproductive.
Certainly, discharging noxious fumes and other gases resulting from combustion is of major concern.
Media provides a steady stream of comments about dire consequences to be expected if strict levels of emission controls are not imposed. The consequences are often vastly overstated, and without regard for an underlying scientific basis.
A major controversy is now raging between factions that believe that dire consequences will result from not imposing strict controls, and those who believe that the severe consequences are mostly misinformed hype. For the most part, media has taken the unethical journalistic position to ignore the controversy and to favor the views of those who want change. One problem is that the proposed changes would invoke policies that are based more on subjective than objective views.
The United Nations has sanctioned a group called the International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), which has received recognition as the source of the most representative analysis of factors that influence planetary climate, now and in the future. They have issued nearly four sets of reports which are often cited as benchmarks for projecting knowledge and policy on managing our environment. The IPCC has a cadre of people who have signed on to the major conclusions of their reports and in a general sense, to their veracity. These people are often regarded to be a very large consensus of scientists. It remains to be seen if most represent scientific disciplines that have any bearing on climatology, and whether some have personal agendas that influence their views. It has often been stated that this consensus far overwhelms any other collection of scientists that have opposing views. While this position may garner support from an uninformed public, one doesn’t have to look far to find a motivation for this position. Consensus has far more to do with politics than science. Science is involved with producing reproducible results, and not with consensus.
In most countries, media is more will to air politically correct views at the expense of overlooking balanced information which contain views that may be considered controversial.
Many sources of energy involve heat derived from combustion. The majority of the comments given here will deal with fuels, and with the combustion of these fuels to make the energy available.
A range of issues are involved with choices now made for supplying energy. If changes are to be made, it makes sense to invoke those changes that, in balance, are made with full knowledge of the impact on personal and national finances as well as on the environment.