In keeping an open mind to the renewable energy debate, I have to ask this:
Is there a valid economic or ecological reason why we have chosen solar PV and wind as the best choices for investing in? I accept that almost all energy sources are ultimately solar, be in wind, PV, biofuels, hydro electric, even fossil fuels are just stored solar energy, but there are other ways of harvesting them.
Solar PV and wind turbines are the most popular poster children and whipping bosy on here lately, depending on your perspective, but are they only/best choice, and what led to PV and wind being chosen over all the other options? Is it influence of those standing to gain, or are they the best choices we have? Were those industries able to influence policy without all the other options being weighed equally, or are all the other options just pie in the sky and never were viable to start with?
Why does geothermal get so little attention, except in Iceland? From my poorly researched perspective, that would seem like a much more workable solution in a cold, sometimes sunless cyclical climate with a very small environmental footprint.
Tidal power, I see a few projects, but nothing on the scale of PV or wind, and the tides are predictable and reliable compared to wind and sunshine.
Small scale hydro electric, I realize that large scale dams are not popular with the green crowd, but there is, or was much research into small turbines in natural stream flows that don't necessarily require flooding thousands of acres and blocking fish migration, maybe not as reliable year around as a dam, but would still work on sunless windless days, and output would be predictable.
Biofuels the way we make them now, by burning copious amounts of fossil fuels, applying non renewable fertilizer and degrading soils worldwide may still be net energy positive, but is not an ideal sustainable solution, but there may be other ways, perennial plants, more efficient plants, smaller scale that doesn't require transportation, and keeps the waste where it came from. The public is mostly against biofuels, but there likely is a lot more potential there, much of which likely would require GMO's which again, the public is against(the logic of which is questionable)
In spite of my constant bashing of the CO2 scam, and the unworkability of solar in our climate, and with current storage technologies, I do think there is huge potential on a world wide scale. With an electrical grid which scanned both hemispheres, and around the globe, solar PV could funtion without storage. When Iqaluit has 24 hours per day of darkness, Tierra Del Feugo has 17 hours of daylight per day ( OK, and a lot of clouds), and vice versa. When Calgary is in the middle of the night, Beijing is in the middle of the day. The Bering straight is very narrow in the big picture, and could potentially be bridged by power cables. Solar PV isntallations could be placed where the climate is best, and land poorest for other uses. Perhaps even floating in the oceans to bridge the large gap in daylight hours which would exist across the Pacific, and less so the Atlantic as the world turns.
I realize that the opposition to new powerlines is as big as opposition to pipelines or oilsands, (the logic of that opposition, however eludes me one again). I also realize that with current technology, energy losses of carrying current over such distances would be drastic. But, if the energy source is free once the infrastructure is in place, and we eliminate the unpalatable cost /efficiency loss of trying to store electric power, perhaps the losses could be tolerated? I also accept that currently much of the world is having a proxy war in the middle east over a few small pipelines, and seeing that gives one very little hope that we could all agree on a universal power grid, and powerlines, contributions, costs, maintenance, controlling terrorism, corruption, etc. But the potential is there, if the will was there. Is the concept a pipe dream, yes, but could it be done, yes. It could be done with todays technology, whereas storing solar energy enough for 6 months of winter, let alone 12 hours of darkness with today's technology, is not economically, or ecologically feasible.
The catch 22, is that developing any alternate energy technology will require massive energy to build. Right now we have the massive amount of energy in fossil fuels, but no motivation to use them to develop alternatives. If we wait until we have no choice, we won't have the energy required to make the changes. But doing it right now does not make economic sense because fossil fuels are so perfect an energy source, so plentiful and there fore so cheap.
What other potential energy sources am I missing, and why are they not the chosen ones?
Is there a valid economic or ecological reason why we have chosen solar PV and wind as the best choices for investing in? I accept that almost all energy sources are ultimately solar, be in wind, PV, biofuels, hydro electric, even fossil fuels are just stored solar energy, but there are other ways of harvesting them.
Solar PV and wind turbines are the most popular poster children and whipping bosy on here lately, depending on your perspective, but are they only/best choice, and what led to PV and wind being chosen over all the other options? Is it influence of those standing to gain, or are they the best choices we have? Were those industries able to influence policy without all the other options being weighed equally, or are all the other options just pie in the sky and never were viable to start with?
Why does geothermal get so little attention, except in Iceland? From my poorly researched perspective, that would seem like a much more workable solution in a cold, sometimes sunless cyclical climate with a very small environmental footprint.
Tidal power, I see a few projects, but nothing on the scale of PV or wind, and the tides are predictable and reliable compared to wind and sunshine.
Small scale hydro electric, I realize that large scale dams are not popular with the green crowd, but there is, or was much research into small turbines in natural stream flows that don't necessarily require flooding thousands of acres and blocking fish migration, maybe not as reliable year around as a dam, but would still work on sunless windless days, and output would be predictable.
Biofuels the way we make them now, by burning copious amounts of fossil fuels, applying non renewable fertilizer and degrading soils worldwide may still be net energy positive, but is not an ideal sustainable solution, but there may be other ways, perennial plants, more efficient plants, smaller scale that doesn't require transportation, and keeps the waste where it came from. The public is mostly against biofuels, but there likely is a lot more potential there, much of which likely would require GMO's which again, the public is against(the logic of which is questionable)
In spite of my constant bashing of the CO2 scam, and the unworkability of solar in our climate, and with current storage technologies, I do think there is huge potential on a world wide scale. With an electrical grid which scanned both hemispheres, and around the globe, solar PV could funtion without storage. When Iqaluit has 24 hours per day of darkness, Tierra Del Feugo has 17 hours of daylight per day ( OK, and a lot of clouds), and vice versa. When Calgary is in the middle of the night, Beijing is in the middle of the day. The Bering straight is very narrow in the big picture, and could potentially be bridged by power cables. Solar PV isntallations could be placed where the climate is best, and land poorest for other uses. Perhaps even floating in the oceans to bridge the large gap in daylight hours which would exist across the Pacific, and less so the Atlantic as the world turns.
I realize that the opposition to new powerlines is as big as opposition to pipelines or oilsands, (the logic of that opposition, however eludes me one again). I also realize that with current technology, energy losses of carrying current over such distances would be drastic. But, if the energy source is free once the infrastructure is in place, and we eliminate the unpalatable cost /efficiency loss of trying to store electric power, perhaps the losses could be tolerated? I also accept that currently much of the world is having a proxy war in the middle east over a few small pipelines, and seeing that gives one very little hope that we could all agree on a universal power grid, and powerlines, contributions, costs, maintenance, controlling terrorism, corruption, etc. But the potential is there, if the will was there. Is the concept a pipe dream, yes, but could it be done, yes. It could be done with todays technology, whereas storing solar energy enough for 6 months of winter, let alone 12 hours of darkness with today's technology, is not economically, or ecologically feasible.
The catch 22, is that developing any alternate energy technology will require massive energy to build. Right now we have the massive amount of energy in fossil fuels, but no motivation to use them to develop alternatives. If we wait until we have no choice, we won't have the energy required to make the changes. But doing it right now does not make economic sense because fossil fuels are so perfect an energy source, so plentiful and there fore so cheap.
What other potential energy sources am I missing, and why are they not the chosen ones?
Comment