Current Energy Myths
There's a whole lotta hype surrounding renewable energy technology. I place suspicious technologies on this page.
But won't Technology will save us?
Ultimately there is no magic bullet of technology out there that will allow us to continue operating as we have. It will be a combination of technology (99% of which already exists) and redesigning our society around people instead of the car.
Mass transit figures prominently in this equation. We could concievably design a system of transportation that was like riding a fast elevator to any point in the city. A dynamic system that reduces wait time to a minimum, is comfortable, and provides for ease of movement virtually from cradle to grave. One of the biggest complaints elderly people have is that they can no longer drive to see their friends and relatives. We are already seeing communities of elderly people that are designed around limited mobility requirements. This thinking needs to spread beyond the needs of the elderly to the rest of our urban and suburban designs.
In the end, any solution that requires us to hurry up and wait for this "wonderful new technology that's going to save us all" should be fully examined for its real impact upon the problem. Many solutions are not really solutions but spin used to justify funding dirty carbon fuels and continuing business as usual for current energy producers. I find the following examples of this sort of "thought pollution" in the current dialogue on global warming and its solutions.
Carbon Capture
One thing that I'd like to address at the outset is Carbon Sequestration. Otherwise known as Carbon Capture, this technology remains mostly unproven. It is currently being used (in a nearly completely theoretical state) to bolster the argument that coal is the power source of the future. (read more)
Large Scale Hydro-Electric Generation
It is generally not well known that large scale hydro-electric power is not a great investment. It returns (besides nuclear which by some estimates have yet to make a profit) just about the lowest percentage of profit when considered against other forms of renewable energy. If you consider the cost of displacing residents and the loss of cultivated land there may actually be a net loss of income as well as biodiversity.
These large scale plans have wreaked havoc politically in many areas and are not regarded as being an environmentally sound strategy for a clean energy future.
Fuel Cells
Unfortunately I'm afriad this is another case of misguided purpose.
Many people are excited about the possibility of truly clean energy and fuel cells seem to represent this possibility. However, if one notes the position of President George W. Bush on energy, you will find much support fot this particular technology coming from the Whitehouse. The reason for this is that the hydrogen will be mostly derived from oil. This will of course change little in the big picture and will leave the political power in the same hands that worked so hard at obfuscating the debate over global warming and whether or not it was caused by humans for the last two decades.
The only way that fuel cell technology will be clean is if we produce the hydrogen from wind, solar or other renewable power. This is totally feasable but it certainly reduces the atractiveness from the perspective of Big Oil.
In the end, money spent on fuel cell technology will only be cost effective if we bar hydrogen derived from petroleum.
Bio Fuels
This is probably the second most annoying myth that I feel is important to clear up.
Not all bio fuels (or bio-mass as it is sometimes referred to) are created equal. Using corn presents several downsides. One is the price fluctuation which has ocurred as a result of the current investments in corn based fuels. The poorest of the poor in Mexico are now having a difficult time affording corn for the simplest of staples, the corn tortilla. (read more)
