Green Energy

I'm reading New Scientist today (I say that like it's what I do) and this guy Mark Jacobson has been reviewing alternate energy sources. Finally, someone who knows what's going on. Biofuels are for complete and total morons (my words, not his).

'Environmentalists': "I know! Let's grow a bunch of food!"

African kids: "Can we have some?"

'Environmentalists': "Ha! No, silly starving kids. This food is for driving SUVs, not for 3rd world countries. Eco-SUVs."

Essonol: "Okay, we switched from gasoline to ethanol. Now, where's the billions of litres of fuel we need?"

'Environmentalists': "We need to grow more. Just sit tight."

Grade School Math Student: "According to my calculations 5318008. Now, look at it upside down. Yeah? Oh! And you need twice the surface area of the Earth to grow enough corn every season to consistently keep up with current fuel needs."

'Environmentalists': "You're making that up."

Grade School Math Student: "Totally. I hate doing math. But it doesn't take a mathematician to tell you that you need more space than you have to grow enough corn to last an entire season. Not to mention basic knowledge of agriculture tells us the soil is depleted of its nutrients when a single crop is grown there season after season. That's where four year rotation comes in."

'Environmentalists': "For a math student, you certainly bring up a lot of non-math related arguments."

Grade School Math Student: "Yeah, it's because I'm not a complete an total idiot."

Okay, back to the point.

The energy sources that Jacobson found most promising were, in descending order:

• Wind

• Concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a tower of water)

• Geothermal energy

• Tidal energy

• Solar panels

• Wave energy

• Hydroelectric dams

Unfortunately, these still have their problems.

1. Wind Power. Wind is a fundamental component to weather. To harvest energy from it, you are removing that energy. Energy is what makes wind go. I'm no climatologist or meteorologist, but when you start fucking with the wind, you start fucking with global ecosystems. Who knows the ramifications of erecting vast fields of wind turbines? It won't be apparent until we are dependent, but there are some serious consequences to removing that much energy from the wind.

2. Solar Thermal. I always thought the way to do it was to heat a hunk of salt or sodium or something like that until it melts and use that to vapourize a small amount of water which is used to run turbines. You know, rather than making a giant kettle. But, if there is a method that isn't reliant on heating a large body of water, this seems fairly viable, save for its expanse. This could be resolved possibly by overlapping solar power and pre-existing infrastructure. The great core of a city could be a power plant, and all the surrounding buildings might reflect light from calibrated mirrors toward a single bright beacon of a renewable future. Plus, you could regulate the building owners to maintain their mirrors as a cost for the real estate (or pay a hefty government tax to have them do it for you). I mean, cities are already affecting the Earth's natural albedo. Might as well make electricity out of it.

3. Geothermal. Okay, I just have one question here. Have any of you scientists ever eaten anything hot? I mean, come on! Imagine the Earth is one big pizza pocket. During the formation of the galaxy, accretion formed the Earth on High for 1 1/2 minutes. Now Earth sits on the plate of space. It is cool and crusty on the outside, but liquid hot on the inside. What you're proposing is for us to stab holes in the Earth and use that heat for power. Now, we can't exactly eat the Earth when it is merely deliciously warm rather than inhospitably hot. So it will sit on the plate and cool and cool and cool until we are a man-made asteroid. That's an exaggeration, but the part about cooling still stands. Again, messing with the Earth's temperature probably isn't exactly eco-friendly. Think of the places where geothermal energy escapes naturally. Do you have a hundred million large scale examples in your head? Didn't think so.

4. Tidal Energy. I've been thinking about this one for years. Other than maybe not being that efficient and the high probablity that large amounts of natural habitats would eventually be destroyed (think about it. Ain't nothing living in the toxic waters of New York City that can't live somewhere else.) Gravity is the weakest and greatest force in the universe. It may not push very hard, but it is unstoppable. No man-made machine could ever unintentionally disrupt the gravitational interaction between Earth and the Moon. But, again, inefficient at best. Although, the work load is pretty even. High tide, gravity works. Low tide, maintenance.

5. Solar Panels. Raw materials. Where do you get all of them? A lot of plastic and metal and glass and... and all those things over again. Other than that, hella-stellar idea. Only, make it mandatory. I'll come back to that one later.

6. Wave Energy. It's like gravity lite. But not a bad idea. Using the weight of water is never a bad idea. 'Cause it be heavy.

7. Hydro Electric Dams. Great idea! Except for the beavers and fish and plants and bears and cougars and moose and wolves and deer and the rest of the temperate zone riverbed ecosystem. Fish swim upstream to spawn every year, right? I have an idea! Why don't we put little generators inside every woman so that-
I'll stop myself there, but you can see what I mean. Fish need rivers to spawn, and thus, to live. Maybe we could exploit other species for energy. 200km/moose


Obviously I'm big on this whole environmental impact deal. I kinda like the environment. But I understand that we do nothing that is 100% eco-friendly. The best source of energy is all of the above. This energy crisis is like being poor. The solution isn't a single answer and it's not easy and we will have to make sacrifices. One big heist exposes us to serious, long term dangers. The solution is to scrape and save and work all the options. It's all about the division of labour.

I just want to finish up here by talking about hydrogen power as a replacement for gasoline. It only makes sense so long as we can store more energy in hydrogen than we can in a battery with the added bonus that we get to keep the same combustion engine technology with lighter environmental consequences. I propose that half of you scientists go work on a way to store electricity better and the other half works on how to make storing hydrogen practical and safe. All of you scientists who are working on ways to transmit energy, keep doing your thing. You will be the saviours of us all.