Alternative
energy isn't the answer
The real key is to
reduce consumption
“We're
not going to be rescued by alternative fuels. No
amount or combination of alternative fuels is going
to allow us to continue running what we're running
the way we're running it.” --
James
Howard KunstlerLet's be absolutely clear about
something: The key to solving our energy
problems isn't finding some alternative source of
energy. The key is to simply use less
energy. That's because:
- Using less energy actually works, you can
start today, and it makes a big impact.
- The solution to a wasteful lifestyle is to
stop being wasteful, not to try
finding ways to continue a wasteful way of
living.
- Alternative energy can't supply nearly as
much energy as coal and oil, for the foreseeable
future.
 If
you were hitting yourself in the head with a hammer
and it hurt, how would you solve that problem?
Would you look for "alternatives" like using a
softer hammer, or getting a smaller hammer, or
maybe wrapping a towel around your head to soften
the blow? Or would you simply stop hitting
yourself in the head with a hammer?! I hope you
chose the latter.
We have an energy crisis because we're using
ridiculous amounts of energy, and that holiday
is rapidly disappearing as we burn through an
ever-shrinking supply of coal and oil. Once it's
gone, it's gone, man. The solution is simply to use
less. It's ridiculously easy to do, and it works.
Cutting our use by 50% is just as good as
doubling the amount of energy available. And
let me tell you, we are nowhere close to
being able to double the amount of energy available
with alternatives.
The idea of looking for alternatives is
basically saying, "What other forms of energy exist
so I can continue wasting energy like there's no
tomorrow?" That attitude is simply sad and
disappointing.
Some readers are perplexed by my position and
ask me, "Since we have to use some energy,
shouldn't the energy we do use be green?" That
would be a great question if we had already reduced
our consumption to a reasonable level. But few
people are asking that question from that
perspective. They're asking from the perspective of
wanting an energy substitute so they don't have to
trouble themselves with conservation.
But conservation is available right now and
has tremendous bang for the buck. If we cut our
use by 80% (mine is closer to 90%, so it's
possible), our energy stores would last five
times longer and the pollution generated would
be so small we honestly wouldn't worry about
it.
Now, as an individual, if you want to install
wind or solar
power, then sure, go for it. But the first
thing that people who opt for wind or solar find
out is that those systems are expensive and can't
generate very much power, so they have to
drastically reduce their consumption in order to
make it work. And bingo, it's the "drastically
reducing their consumption" part that is the real
benefit to the environment, not the actual source
of the energy once that consumption has already
been reduced.
Now let's look at some various energy sources
to see how they stack up.
Coal
This is how most electricity is
generated in the U.S., and it comes with a whole
host of problems:
- Burning coal is a powerful cause of
climate change and global warming.
- Coal emits all kinds of other pollutants
which foul up the air, including sulfur and
mercury.
- "Clean
Coal" is a marketing ploy. There is
really no such thing. Coal is dirty,
period.
- Coal's problems start well before it's
burned. We get coal by strip-mining,
destroying forests and other natural areas
(and all the plants and animals that used to
be there) to get to the coal under the
ground.
- Coal is a limited resource. When it's
gone, it's gone.
Nuclear power
The good thing about nuclear power is
that it's unlimited, and we can't run out of it.
The bad thing is the one you already know: The
waste from production is toxic, and it lasts
nearly forever. We haven't come close to
figuring out what to do with all that waste, and
don't have a good plan to keep it safely
contained for the generations upon generations
that it will remain toxic.
Solar power
Solar is the most viable
alternative. And thanks to new tax credits
that start in 2009, solar
is now cheaper than grid energy for many
people. I'm currently planning on installing
solar myself, and I encourage you to do so too
-- but only after you've gotten your consumption
down to a reasonable level.
Wind power
There is nothing especially bad about
wind power (besides the wholesale destruction of
habitats where they put the wind farms), but the
problems here are familiar: Wind simply can't
make much of a dent in the staggering amount of
energy we use, and it's quite expensive. As
usual, the simpler solution is for us to simply
use less.
Biofuels
A long time ago my friend Frieda
commented on biofuels by saying, "Biofuels?
Yeah, that's great: Burn all the food!"
She's not alone. CNN
notes that biofuels "raise concerns over the
impact on the global food supply", And even with
energy, the reality is that it takes nearly as
much energy to farm the crops for biofuel as
those crops produce -- and in same cases it
takes even more energy! And, surprise
surprise, biofuels also cause more
greenhouse emissions than conventional
fuels. Then there's deforestation. For example,
Brazil as allowing 200
million hectares of tropical forest to be
used to grow biofuels. In any event, there is
not nearly enough cropland available to grow
enough biofuels to allow us to continue to waste
ridiculous amounts of energy. Even if we all
agreed to forego eating.
So, we can hang our hopes an alternatives, or
we can simply start using less right this very
minute, and reduce pollution immediately. The
choice is yours. Happy savings! :)
What do you think of
this YouTube
video which shows
technology to turn water into
electricity?!
-- Steven R., July
2008
Oh, it's great, if you feel like paying
$74 per kWh! The average cost from U.S.
utilities is only 12¢. Some revolution,
there.
Let's back up a minute: The thing in the
video is basically a battery: You fill it with
water, and it generates power. Expensive power.
The 270 wH container costs $20. And I'm not even
counting the cost of the "charger", which is
another $400.
Now, you might say that comparing the cost to
household electricity isn't fair, because this
device is intended to be used as a battery.
Okay, fair enough, let's compare it to
batteries. A double-A rechargeable NiMH battery
costs $2.50 and has a capacity of 1.2V x 2200
mAh = 2.64 wH. So that's 1000 / 2.64 x $2.50 =
$947 per kWh. So that looks pricer than the
water battery, except for one thing: You can
charge the $2.50 AA 500 times, while the water
battery costs another $20 for each cycle. That
brings the cost of the AA down to $1.89 per kWh.
Yes, there's also the cost of electricity to
recharge the battery, but that's less than
twenty-five cents for all 500 recharge
cycles, total.
|
