Some Forms of Renewable Energy Still Make Difficult Demands on Environment
Decatur Metro | September 30, 2009 | 8:00 amIn some ways, this morning’s NY Times story reminds me of the clamor over ethanol a couple years back. In the race to find the cure to our black gold addiction, some of the most highly publicized methods for producing “renewable energy” are still strongly at odds with nature.
With ethanol, it was the sticky wicket that to produce corn at such high volumes you needed petroleum-based fertilizers to artificially nourish the nutrient-starved ground. So, you really weren’t finding a renewable resource so much as further subsidizing an already big, fat corn industry.
When it comes to solar power, in the public’s mind, “efficiency” is measured only by how limitations of your power source. With solar power, it’s good it’ll the sun goes dark. It’s the ultimate long-term, if not truly “renewable” power source.
Great, right? Eh…
Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.
“When push comes to shove, water could become the real throttle on renewable energy,” said Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor at the University of Texas in Austin who studies the relationship between energy and water.
Conflicts over water could shape the future of many energy technologies. The most water-efficient renewable technologies are not necessarily the most economical, but water shortages could give them a competitive edge.
Solar demands for millions of gallons of water are currently only a real issue in drier areas of the country where a general lack of solar-hogs (a.k.a. “trees”) exist. The high-water demand gets desert farmers and residents angry that solar is laying claim to the one scarce, key component of their livelihood. And while it’s kind of paradoxical that talks of “renewable” energy are taking place in locations where water-transport for ANY use is insanely inefficient, the reality of the situation is that renewable energy is supposed to be the trump card to turn our weak economic hand into a 21st century winner and there are still many hurdles, other than just funding, to overcome.
Right now, alternative fuels are basically methadone. They may show some increment of promise or improvement but, in the end, it’s just swapping one addiction for another.
When it comes to Energy Use, we’re tipped too heavily towards looking at the “Energy” and not enough towards looking at the “Use”. We need to work towards less energy-intensive lifestyles.
Consumption is a helluva nice ride, until you use everything up. Then it kinda sucks.
I really like this analogy to physical drug addiction, especially the last line. Has anyone tried using it with the public (maybe cleaned up a little)? Or is denial too strong for folks to get it?
Good thing we’re nowhere near using everything up. We have so much natural gas, for instance, that we’re having hard time storing it. And that’s before some huge NG projects get rolling, for instance in Australia.
Not sure how thrilled I am by the prospect of natural gas from Australia since getting it here requires reducing its temperature to 250 degrees below zero and then shipping it across the ocean.
I guess its attractiveness depends on how desperately you want it.
We actually don’t need it — there are huge supplies of natural gas right here in North America. The Australian natural gas will go mostly to Asia. The point is, there is a lot of it.
Our huge supply of natural gas is like the huge supply of oil in Canada’s tar sands. We can only get it through mining operations with a heavy toll on the environment. In the case of natural gas, the technique is called fracking (hydraulic fracturing), which dumps toxic materials into groundwater and won’t be allowed much longer. (My guess is the EPA puts a stop to it in 2-3 years with Clean Water Act authority.) The industry knows there’s a short window in which to get these supplies, so they’re storing it as fast as possible now.
It’s all about energy conservation as well as water conservation. It’s amazing what can be accomplished simply with insulation, efficient roofing, water collection and smarter use like Scott said. You can save a lot more by using less energy than creating new ways of producing energy. Either way both have to happen because we are destroying the world with our coal consumption, not only the use but the extraction.
Carson Matthews
http://www.GreentotheScene.com
The scarry part is that the “middle-class” population of the world is growing very rapidly in places like China, India, Brazil, Russia and in the middle east. The middle class in these countries want the same things we want: cars, electricity, refrigerators, ac, tv, computers, etc, etc, etc.
The world demand for energy and resources is going to tighten. We in the US have been thriving on cheap energy for a 100 years. We have a big challenge ahead of us. We really need to change our energy standards now. We could reduce our heating/cooling expenses by 50% with technologies that are available right now. The fact is the less money we put in the hands of energy companies is more money that circulates in our community.
“The fact is the less money we put in the hands of energy companies is more money that circulates in our community.”
With respect, I think this is a very misguided view. Money paid to Exxon doesn’t disappear down a rat hole. It hires workers, pay suppliers who in turn pay their workers, pays dividends to shareholders, etc. If you have a 401(k) you probably have an indirect investment in several energy companies. Oh, and by the way, Exxon and its competitors pay billions upon billions in corporate taxes. Energy companies have created wealth, not sucked it from communities.
I guess it depends on your definition of “rat hole”. In 2005, the CEO of Exxon made $69.7 million dollars ($190,915/day).
Well, I’m not a big fan of massive CEO pay, either, but you do have to view that in a little bit of context. Without looking it up, I’m almost certain that Exxon’s profits in that year were tens of billions. (Might have been the year it was the most profitable company in US history.) So his pay is a small fraction of what the Company earned. And, of course, exec. pay is a matter between Exxon and its shareholders — they can vote the board out if they think the CEO is producing too little and being paid too much. Exxon is an incredibly well-managed company with huge profits, a pristine balance sheet, and a pretty incredible record of shareholder returns.
This is where I would normally get involved with a defense of energy companies, but DEM has my back on this one. Thanks, DEM.
The petro dollars end up back in the middle east. You can defend that if you want. The US imports more oil than any other country. On a per capita basis, despite our own resources we are also a huge importer (6th largest behind, Israel, Japan, Greece and Spain).
Big oil, the coal industry and our friends at Southern Company are major opponents to policies that reduce greenhouse gases. They have their agenda and apparently, it is oblivious to the impacts of global warming.
Yes, invester owned companies are important parts of the national economy, but if you want to grow a local economy, you don’t send your money outside the region. A better economic development strategy would be to encourage people to save (build wealth and capital) or spend the money in local businesses where the benefit multiplies. Conserving energy expenditures allows people to save money and/or spend it on discretionary uses.
So, assuming that solar energy isn’t really sustainable because of the demand on the water supply, the biofuels from corn & sugar cane really aren’t either due to their long-term impact on soil & water (plus, because they’re from food crops, the effect they’d have on the prices & availability of those plants & the many products that are made from them), and nuclear cold fusion is not yet a feasible option, what else is there? Obviously, coal & petrofuels are finite sources of energy (not to mention their impact on air quality), and the point about China & India becoming power consumer societies on a par with the US (and likely surpassing us, due to the sheer numbers in their population) is dead on– so what currently viable alternatives are left to choose from? Conventional nuclear power? “Clean” coal (is there really such a thing)? Is there anything that doesn’t have collateral side effects that make i necessary to balance between the power source itself and the possible damage it may cause by its very use? The only thing I can come up with is wind, and from the little I know, that’s not yet a viable, stand-alone source…so, what choices do we have, besides using the alternatives we have now, and hoping something sustainable comes along (or is developed) in the near future?
Your solution lacks vision.
I say we bomb India and China into complete nuclear oblivion, thus
A) reducing surplus power-consuming populations (more oil for us)
B) reclaiming our domestic manufacturing base (no Chinese factories, no Wal*mart: bonus!)
C) halting or reversing global temperature increases with cozy “nuclear winter” clouds
In this new era of global cooperation, surely the world would respect and admire such a “groundbreaking” solution.
If we only had Dick Cheney, this could all be possible.
This is a good piece to read. It is a summary of a paper that surveys the available sources of energy for the foreseeable future. His conclusion is that solar is the only viable long term solution and that solar hydrogen is the best choice given current technology.
http://www.physorg.com/news170326193.html
There are several solar thermal solutions that don’t use much water — most notably Stirling Energy Systems and Tessera — which have the most efficient solar generators in production.
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/
And finally it is ironic that the article includes a picture of an incredibly wasteful irrigation system poring thousands of gallons of water onto open ground. If the argument is with farmers then they have to learn how to conserve more as well.
uc
Love the thoughtful dialogue. All of you obviously care about the issues. Someone just tolkd me to tune in to this dialogue. … You need to know about something … This coming Monday a Web solution that engages residential consumers in cutting their energy consumption will hold its national launch event in Washington, D.C. It’s a one-stop resource for cutting home energy and connecting to resources … on a national and local level by ZIP Code. It was founded and built by Decatur folks. Decatur is our 1st Charter City … meaning the commission voted to become an official participant. But it’s been like pulling teeth to get leaders (government, utility, business) in GA to take this seriously. BUT the U.S. Dept of Energy does. We have a link on the EERE’s website at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/related_links.html. That is a very big deal. And Dr. Sam Hancock, host of The EmeraldPlanet television show recently became a fan. TODAY is the last day you can do this to be included in our PR materials for the launch, but you can become a “Charter Member” by simply making a “pledge” online: 1) you’re committed to reducing your personal consumption of fossil fuels; 2) you have made a PLAN on ZiptoGreen to cut your household consumption (takes 5 minues) OR you have already cut it to 50% of the national average; 3) and that you will share the importance of EE with others. Just click the orange Pledge link, send us an email. You’ll be listed in our press materials AND on the website. Take a look (www.ziptogreen.com About Us / Charter Members / Leaders / Others). I apologize for interrupting your conversation with this appeal. But you’re the kind of folks who should be included in what we’re trying to accomplish.