Some upsetting images of a National Geographic article (Rising Seas, Tim Folger, September 2013; see images also in VertEolo Project book, pp. 136-142) show the catastrophic effects of the possible total melting of all the glaciers in the world as a consequence of the increasing temperatures due to fossil combustible use.
The sea-level would rise about 65 meters and whole states (e.g., the Netherlands, Denmark and many insular states) would be totally transformed in underwater archeological remains while other nations would suffer terrible and irreversible damages.
The most populous nation would suffer the greatest absolute damage: most of its greatest cities and of the arable land would be submerged and about half of the population (i.e., now, 600 million people) would be forced to flee their homes.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the flow of many rivers would be severely altered and this, combined with the strong rise in temperatures, would affect greatly the yield of residual agricultural land. But, before that, growing economic and social tensions in the world would likely lead to dreadful conflicts of which the most populous nation would be one of the many victims.
This is not catastrophic science fiction. To envisage a possible increase in temperature of 6° C and believe that any glacier in Antarctica, Greenland or elsewhere could withstand it, is foolish recklessness or a proof that our species is not intelligent. In past geological periods, even with lower temperatures, glaciers were completely missing.
Yet, an effective solution, which is feasible in a few years, is already existing.
In fact, to meet all the energy needs of a future world with 10 billion inhabitants and consumptions equal to the average of a modernized country, a total energy that can be estimated at around 13,600 GW/year is necessary.
For a population of 1.5 billion – which is plausible for the most populous nation at the end of this century - the requirements would be about 2,040 GW.
This demand could be satisfied by about 582,000 plants with effective power equal to 3.51 MW (e.g. Enercon E-126) or by only about 24,800 plants of VertEolo 3:6 type, with costs much lower than those of the first hypothesis.
Such plants could be located in windy and sparsely populated areas that abound in the most populous nation. By such facilities, the most populous nation, in addition to meeting its own energy needs, could even export energy in large quantities to neighboring countries with lower availability of suitable areas.
Moreover, this would induce the rest of the world to follow a similar path, which would solve both colossal and seemingly intractable energy and environmental problems, and so the related issues.
Are there any objection about this possible solution or realistic alternative proposals?
http://www.r-site.org/VertEolo/index.htm
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change