>>What, then, is the least pernicious alternative — and the most environmentally, financially and ethically sound? Unfortunately, for a while longer it is not just to trust in promising new technologies like wind and solar power; for decades to come, these will only provide a fraction of our energy needs.
Instead, aside from greater conservation, we must develop more traditional energy resources at home. That would mean building more nuclear power plants, intensifying efforts at mining and burning coal more cleanly — and developing more domestic oil, while retooling our vehicles to be even lighter and more fuel-efficient.<<
Bob -
These two paragraphs are, in a nutshell, where we differ in our views on how best to deal with this crisis.
The authors make the flat statement "wind and solar power; for decades to come, will only provide a fraction of our energy needs." That statement is offered without any kind of supporting logic or facts. I don't think such a statement contributes meaningfully to the discussion of this problem, nor to the solution.
I have several problems with accepting that statement on its face, as you seem to do. Let me first point out that I agree completely with the basic premise, as far as it goes. Sure, wind and solar will most likely only provide a fraction of our energy over the next couple of decades.
What I disagree with is the implication that we should not expend our efforts on building solar and wind plants now, because the output won't be great enough.
Any new plants we build over the next few decades, no matter what their source of energy, will provide only a fraction of our electricity needs, unless we plan to build more generating capacity than already exists, and retire all the old plants. What we need to know is how big a fraction of our needs could solar and wind plants provide? How does that fraction compare with the fraction that could otherwise be provided by new coal and nuclear plants?
There is also the implication that it takes such a long time to build wind and solar plants that we can't afford to wait for them. Anyone who is selling that idea is simply not aware of the current state of solar thermal power generation. And it's not as if coal and nuclear plants spring out of the ground overnight.
If you want to look at this situation in a non-simplistic way, it behooves you to consider all the alternatives, and not just the ones that benefit the present players in the energy industry.
- Allen
PS: I believe that distributed solar thermal and voltaic generation, and rooftop mounted vertical wind turbines could allow a majority of American homes to generate all, or most of, the electricity they need to operate. If we get started next year, it wouldn't even take a decade to put a huge dent in our need for big power plants. These kinds of ideas don't even seem to make it into the calculus of the sources you quote. Why not? |
