Add Not Subtract


In the energy / climate discourse, it seems to me, many people tend to be "against" everything.

Could we be more "for" and less "against?"

Well, here is my list.

I am for:

  • Coal if it is the only option or if it is replacing biomass (dung or wood).
  • Natural gas. Do we have today a better energy source that is constant / reliable / scaleable / affordable to replace coal? I don't think so. Also, these natural gas plants could probably eventually be converted to nuclear power. 
  • Nuclear. What is not to like in nuclear? It is the lowest carbon energy in the reliable / dense camp. Well, yes, it is currently a little expensive and needs some PR work but still, it is very good.
  • Hydro. If you have hydro, don't think twice. Just look at the carbon intensity of the electrical grids in Albania, Paraguay and Norway. All of them are below 10 grams per kWh!
  • Oil. Nothing beats oil in transportation: cars, trucks, ships and particularly airplanes. 
  • Solar thermal. In other words, solar water heaters. They come with their own storage included and can substantially reduce or even eliminate other fuels used to enjoy hot showers.
  • Solar PV. The roofs are there anyway, so, why not cover them with solar panels? Sure, it is absurd to do this in countries like Germany that have very low solar capacity factors, but hey, most people live in places with more annual sunlight. Just a cautionary note: forget about "solar farms" that industrialize our treasured wilderness or use land needed for growing food.
Having said the above, I do have to concede that even when trying to think positively it is hard to find real merit with two energy sources:

  • Biomass (wood and dung). Hundreds of years ago they supplied almost 100% of our energy and we couldn't move away from them fast enough. Let's not return to that past.
  • Wind. I'm sorry, but I cannot, with a straight face, recommend this option. If there is a point to be made in favor of wind, let Vestas or General Electric do it. I'm sure they have enough financial incentive to try it.
Yes, eventually we will have to move away from fossil fuels but the transition won't take place overnight. No matter in how much hurry we are, it takes time to bring an elephant to term. Doing it hastily would only cause chaos and unnecessary suffering.

So again, people, let's try to build, not destroy, let's have the optimism of an engineer! Or, as the Beatles used to say, think that: we can work it out! 


Feel free to add to the conversation at Twitter: @luisbaram

Thanks.

Comments

Lars said…
I really like your positive attitude! You forgot one: encourage people who are trying to get rid of FF, even if it seems absurd what they do or how they do it. The positive action will gain traction.

Solar hot water should be mandatory, really as it can be done almost everywhere
1/14/2015 3:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more