World Energy Outlook ... in 20-40 years

[Editor's Note: I am a long time proponent of renewable energy and associated technologies.  My argument here is looking at two facts: 1) the researchers are stating we can supply 100% of the earth's energy needs by wind, solar and hydro power within 20-40 years and 2) that this is at no additional cost. I am asking that they consider the 1) the impacts of the technologies at large scale deployment and 2) more clearly define "no additional cost," ie, as compared to what?  Further, our solution lies as much or more in demand-side management and energy/resource efficiency as energy sourcing.  There is no foreseeable panacea.  We need to diversify our energy portfolio and power delivery.  We need to go to more onsite and efficient, and, yes, potentially costly solutions.  It is imperative.]

So, here's the story: "The World Can be Powered by Alternative Fuel Using Today's Technology in 20-40 Years...."

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.  "Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources, said  Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering.  "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will." 

My first question is, "Really?" (note the raised eyebrow)


The next question revolves Jacobson's quote at the end of the article, "This really involves a large scale transformation," he said. "It would require an effort comparable to the Apollo moon project or constructing the interstate highway system."  

My next question is this: Have Jacobson and his partners not considered the large cost for deploying the technologies and facilitating the transformation on a worldwide basis? These include things such as modernizing worldwide electric grid and delivery systems; developing/utilizing the incoming electricity to meet the variety of needs.

And then, there is this: Have they considered climates that have heating needs and heating efficiencies given they plan to use electricity only as the primary power source for the world?

Have they considered the increase in electric consumption given the proposed transition to electric vehicles? 

Have they considered the energy loss in transportation wires across hundreds of miles from the hydroelectric plants planned to provide power when wind and solar availability are inadequate? 

Have they considered that these most efficient cells used in photovoltaics are generally doped with costly and highly toxic heavy metals in order to develop the needed semi-conducting efficiency and that there will be a highly toxic waste stream associated with mass manufacture of these "clean" energy technologies?

Have they considered the square area of land and availability of appropriate sites needed to deploy these technologies?  How about the availability of wind with consistent, reliable speeds and good laminar flow?

Have they considered geopolitics, the privatization of water across our country? Have they looked at our existing electric grid and analyzed what it would take to deliver energy at this density from wind, solar and hydro sources?  Have they considered that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but changed from one form to another? Have they calculated the availability of wind energy and the needs of human societies and imagined what would happen if that amount of energy were removed from our climate and employed to deliver power? 

My hope is yes; that these things have been considered.  

Yet, economic analysis; technological analysis; socio-political analysis...none are even referenced within the article, except to say that their studies show... which studies?  This is too important not to see the numbers. 

Geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric -- these are all coastal energy sources.  Given the potential destruction of coastal areas should global warming cause the oceans to rise and the severity of storms to increase, there may be a move away from the coasts.  Most of the population in the US is non-coastal, anyway.

First things first: it's about demand-side management.  The cleanest, safest, most abundant energy -- the type that will have a net-zero environmental impact on our life is the energy we don't consume.  Second: it's about diversification.  In this case, "the solution to pollution [may be] dilution." We need to put our eggs in lots of baskets.  We will continue to need high density (read fossil fuel) energy into the next century; we need to minimize it's use.  Combusting fossil fuels is bad for the environment and fossil fuels are in very limited supply.

If we continue to put our collective heads in the sand and brand everything as "good" or "bad" we may miss great opportunities of this life.  We continue to make divisions between opposing points of view instead of seeing those with different perspectives and sets of values from us as resources. We will surely be unprepared to predict the potential impacts of our actions. We diminish our agility and responsiveness. 

We need to ask ourselves the hard questions and be willing to make changes in our individual lives that reduce our environmental footprint; relieve ourselves from the burdens of over-consumption.  We are all burdened by our over-consumption at some level or another. 


Only then can we more effectively deploy renewable energy technologies.

Take a minute.  Look around the room you in which you are sitting.  Make a written inventory of what you perceive as the energy embodied and/or consumed by several items in that room.  Think of harvesting/birth; transportation; manufacture; consumption during use; next uses/reuses; opportunities for the item when spent to be turned to fuel, back to the earth...

Make a list.  Think about what you might do differently that both enhances your life and reduces waste.  Post your ideas here.