| I guess I'm just a dumb Liberal Arts major, but I'm not sure Craig's silver bullet against "alternate" energy is altogether convincing, even tho' the dude is a self-proclaimed engineer.
Engineer:
In order for "alternate energy" to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:
1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).
Excellent criteria - if the question is, how do we completely replace our current energy infrastructure with an alternative energy infrastructure. But while engineers are decent at solving given engineering problems, they're pretty crappy at coming up with the questions. That's why there are architects; otherwise all of our buildings would look like this.
For one, while coal is the cheapest source of energy to burn, it's not the cheapest to use. Ignored here are the external costs of using coal. Not only does the emissions from burning coal contain harmful toxins responsible for the degradation of human health, it greatly contributes to global warming, which, by some accounts will eventually mean losing 5% of GDP of the worldwide economy, every year.
Yes, coal is plentiful and cheap, but...who cares? We shouldn't use it. |
| So, the real question is, how do we best reduce our use of coal and other fossil fuels?
The best, cheapest way to accomplish this, IMHO, is through energy efficiency, which pretty much negates all of the criteria listed above.
For one, energy efficiency must be diffuse and small, because you're primarily addressing demand, not supply. Take homes, for example, simply adding storm windows and decent insulation to older homes would significantly reduce energy use - probably more energy than all our current windmills supply. Augmenting better household insulation with solar panels and a windmill reduces energy use still more. The existing energy infrastructure would still be needed for peak usage - but it would, on the whole, burn a whole h*ll of a lot less coal.
The technology for cheap, household solar - even in developing nations - is already here. Think of this kind of solar like super-powered insulation.
Yes, I agree; we can't replace our current energy infrastructure with alternative energy. But we can augment with wind, solar, hydro, and biomass energy now. |
