This is a supplamental to one of my previous articles titled Paying for pollution. Before or after reading this, you should read the initial article.
One extreme viewpoint in energy policy would have us swear off fossil fuels without thinking of the consequences that would have. The other extreme viewpoint would have us use our fossil fuels without reguard the fact that they're finite and are negatively effecting geopolitics and the envirnment. Both viewpoints are equaly naive. Our goal in producing energy is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, reduce pollution, and reduce or fossil fuel use SO we can maintain the lifestyle we all enjoy.
Many envronmentalists think that renewable energy is the only way to reduce our fossil fuel useage. Renewable energy is one very important method to acheiving this, but isn't the only method or nessasarly the most effective method in all cases. Investing our energy money in new technologies for producing fossil fuel energy more efficiently and using the energy more effectively in some cases can be more effective than investing in renewable energy. However, the cost of renewable energy is coming down, making it a more effective tool, and we must support it so it can become more effective, but we can not let all our foccus to renewable energy to the neglect of other important, effective technologies.
Many people also make the mistake of completly foccusing on oil use, as if coal and natural gas didn't exist. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation and heating. Almost all electricity (produced by fossil fuels) is produced by coal and natural gas, each playing an important role in producing electricity. Coal is used to produce base levels of electricity because it is relatively cheap, however, electricity production levels are slow to change due to it's steam turbines. Natural gas is used to produce peak levels of electricity because it is expensive compared to coal, but can respond to fluctuations due to it's use of gas turbines. Renewable energy, such as wind energy, PV (photovalic) solar energy, and geothermal energy, would reduce use of coal and natural gas, while having little effect on oil consumption. Renewables are still important, and will have an effect when we develop a hydrogen economy, but does not have an effect on oil consumption.
|
|
|
More by Daniel A. |
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 4
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976812981
Like all fossil fuels, the true cost of producing them is not included in the price. I responded to Part 1 of this article by stating that the procurement of coal is extremely costly for a "minority" of our citizens, and I posted this link as an example:
Moving Mountains
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-1om/Reece.html
"One extreme viewpoint in energy policy would have us swear off fossil fuels without thinking of the consequences that would have."
Understanding that a transfer to renewables has to be relatively gradual, I don't agree that "swearing off fossil fuels" is an extreme view. Would you please explain why you think this is extreme? Burning fossil fuels is extremely destructive, their procurement is extremely destructive, and even the so-called "clean technologies" are not so clean under close examination. Waste has to go somewhere.
I also posted, in response to Part 1, that according to NREL calculations, "100 square miles of efficient solar panels" could meet the nation's electrical needs.
Solar Power: the Great Untapped Energy Source
http://www.enn.com/arch.html?id=31654
I don't understand why you say that a goal of transferring off of fossil fuels is "naive." The only reason I can think anyone would say that is to protect economic interests of fossil fuel industry investors.
"Renewables are still important, and will have an effect when we develop a hydrogen economy, but does not have an effect on oil consumption."
When we have a hydrogen economy, hopefully renewables will be the mainstay of that economy. As it is, fossil fuel industries are attempting to co-opt the production of hydrogen, so that hydrogen is produced by fossil fuels rather than renewables. This is a future infrastructure battle that is already taking shape.
Does hydrogen fuel pose environmental problems
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/hydrogen/environment.html
Here it is again, with an additional thought:
Daniel A.
You said:
<<It is a finite resource.>>
refering to natural gas. Where'd you pick up that myth?
It is a myth, albeit a popular one. Fossil fuels, hydrocarbons, are being produced as fast, if not faster, currently than at any time in the geological past.
I'm not qualified to state the rate of exploitation to rate of generation.
Best bets are being wise about energy use:
* Don't burn auto headlights when the sun is shining.
* Buy a 6 passenger Bajaj (100 mi/gal).
* Co-generate with machines at spas.
Think with your eyes open and your mouth closed.
p.s.
* TELECOMMUTE