I recently read a New York Times article on renewable energy that complimented some of the downsides I have been hearing to these sources of energy. In a June 7th, 2011 article (The Gas is Greener), Robert Bryce evaluates the wisdom of new mandates that require states to acquire certain percentages of their energy from renewable sources, such as the one in California that requires the state to use renewable energy for one-third of its electricity. I wish that the story could end there and we could all be excited about mandating the use of clean sources of energy. But, like so many attempts to solve climate woes by replacing what we have now with a new technology or product, this approach is not without its downsides. As Bryce points out in his article, converting wind or sunlight into electricity requires the use of other energy sources, notably fossil fuels, and also uses a very large amount of land. The sources on their own are sustainable, but the process needed to acquire them and transport them takes large amounts of energy and other resources. For example, converting wind to wind energy requires the use of wind turbines- these take large amounts of steel and energy to produce and transport. Wind farms also take large amounts of land and require power lines to transport the energy. From what I understand from the article, both of these sources of energy are not sustainable if you consider the energy needed to produce the equipment and the energy needed to transport the energy. Also, these sources are unlikely to be able to produce all of our energy, meaning, sadly, that they are not a complete solution to our energy problems.
I admit I’m really attracted to the idea of harnassing the power of the sun or wind (Captain Planet, anyone?), but the more I learn about these sources, the less promising I think they are as a replacement for fossil fuels. I believe that these sources could be used in combination with other approaches so that they may be a part of the solution, just not the whole solution.
I agreed with everything I read in the article until I got to the end of the article and read that Bryce was promoting natural gas and nuclear energy. Why is it that the last solution to be suggested is the one that could arguably be the most feasible and most likely to save us? That’s right, I’m talking about (gasp) reducing our energy use! It’s frustrating to see that we keep searching for alternative energy sources so that we can continue to power our current energy lifestyle. Instead, I believe we should be drastically reducing our energy use so that we don’t have such an insurmountable challenge in trying to replace fossil fuels. I think a combined approach of reducing energy use with renewable energy should be considered. I say that it might be easier to reduce our energy use, but only in the sense that I think it should be easier to stop doing something than to discover a magical technology that will provide completely clean renewable energy that can power our entire planet for generations to come. But perhaps I shouldn’t underestimate the strength of our ability to cling to our “way of life.” That being said (trying to end on an optimistic note!), I do think that we can rally and put up with a lot less if it’s seen as a sacrifice for the greater good of the nation (i.e., World War II as others have suggested). It’s just a matter of how we are conceptualizing climate change- perhaps if it were an adversary we could go to war with, things would be different.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=renewable%20energy&st=cse
