The cost of trying to be energy 'independent'
Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM PDT
I want to first thank gmoke for an amazing diary, it inspired me to finally write my first.I also want to agree with him that energy independence at an individual level is achievable and preferable in places like the Midwest where wind or solar are readily available, relatively cost effective, and where extending grids to individual households over the vast distances is just using up valuable resources. However, as he and other posters note, human demographics simply do NOT operate in that way. Energy independence is a misleading farce, and read my diary to see more about why.
Human beings, as a species, tend to live in massive urban and suburban developments which are compressed to such a degree that the most productive alternative energy sources cannot operate at the scale needed to supply them with energy. In 2007, the UN Population Fund predicted that at some point during this year more than half of humanity will be urban. As of a 2005 study that would mean that 50% of the world's population lives on 3-5% (allowing for a few years increase) of our landmass. Without some major breakthroughs in energy, that will not be sustainable in the long term by primarily using our current nonrenewable resources of coal, gas, and oil.
Also of note about the "mythology of energy independence," and only lightly touched on in gmoke's diary, is the fact that though the ability to be energy independent remains plausible (yet, probably not possible), were we to somehow implement this pipe dream the costs would be enormous. It is simply much much cheaper to take energy producing resources from places like Nigeria, Brazil, Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Australia, or Canada than to rely solely on oil, natural gas, or even uranium from home. That does not mean I am denouncing energy independence for monetary reasons, I'm just tossing that factoid on the bonfire of preposterous assumptions that go up in smoke upon closer inspection.
We do, however, possess a substantial amount of world coal reserves (around 25%). The problem is that coal is, by far, the dirtiest fuel and will remain so until someone gets Carbon Capture to actually work, and according to MIT we have been working on it since 1981 with no silver bullet yet. Even when this technology is proven and ready to reproduce on a large scale, I am actually very much against this technology because it provides a makeshift solution whose long term consequences we have no way of gaging. Basically, we pump CO2 into old coal mines, empty oil fields, or large salt deposits/caverns below ground. If we seal these wrong, or they rupture for one reason or another, or they result in unstable geography above ground then we won't know until it is too late.
I was listening to NPR recently and heard a REALLY great interview with a scientist working at Michigan University who had created a breed of corn where the STALKS could be made to hold large quantities of energy rich cellulose. The benefits of this are obvious, we get to keep the corn kernels for food and use the exact same plant for the production of biofuels without affecting the world's food supplies. The way the corn does this is it is encouraged, through an enzyme from a cow's stomach to fill the plant cell's vacuoles (think of them as garbage bins for plant cells) with the woody element.
Anyways, stuff like that new breed of corn are more likely to be the answer than anything we currently utilize. I think cellulose biofuels, like switch grass which Obama does promote, really do look promising. But, I absolutely agree with the man gmoke quotes throughout his diary in that funding of alternative fuels research must be encouraged in all directions, and no winner should be chosen by the government. Holding up the illusion of 'energy independence' is distracting, and does not move the country towards taking real action on climate change or the depletion of our current sources of energy. It is the same as saying "let's keep being the most energy intensive [per capita] country in the world, so long as we [magically] only have to plunder our own natural resources."
These resources are finite. For instance, little attention is paid to water supplies but they are an intricate part of feeding and maintaining the booming population of this planet, and this nation. There are some really great reports out there, of which this is one. So if we can't be independent, and we cannot continue to increase consumption of these finite resources at this rate then what do we do? We need to promote realistic goals that address real problems, and not lead us towards fallacies such as 'energy independence.'
We need to call out our leaders who hold developing countries hostage to lock-outs on trade or who implode negotiations over the 3rd world not taking action when the U.S. has been the one held even less responsible. Witness Bush's condemnation of China or India for not pledging to reduce emissions, then turning around and making the bold step of having called for a stop to growth in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Please reread that sentence. Ok, according to Bush his plan is to do nothing for the next 17 years, but you know what? 2025 seems like a good time to start taking action on halting emissions at WHATEVER the hell they have bloated to become by then. He doesn't even have a plan reduce emissions until AFTER they increase. The amount of fury that this 'plan' inspires within me is too vehement to take the time to express now. What makes the stupid and negligent policy even worse, is that he previously planned to start reducing emissions in 2015... 10 years before he now plans to stop growing them.
It is hypocrisy of the worst sort, and it achieves nothing. Change is needed at the individual, global, and regional level. No one country is responsible, and no one people will be able to solve the problem. Don't be duped, and remember what the future can look like if we continue to ignore the effects of the choices we make today.
Ok, now "write my first dkos diary" is off my to-do list. I think I need a break and a glass of water...
Permalink | 48 comments