OK, we've got that behind us ! "We do ?" you ask yourself. What I mean is that there is no one single solution to the energy crisis we are facing. OK! I admit the word "crisis" is a tad alarmist, but we DO need to be concerned.
I am not going to jump on the climate-change bandwagon, hoping to spur the masses to action with (possibly) questionable science. Maybe global warming is happening, although you'd never know it where I live - woke up to -29C this morning ! But that's a different story...
Nor am I going to say that the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki are alarmist tree-huggers. They believe that there is a crisis, while I think the jury is still out. For example, a significant portion of the Greenhouse Gases which are attributed to Global Warming come from bovine burps !
What I _DO_ know is this: we North Americans are addicted to fossil fuels. We use them to generate electricity and to power almost all modes of transportation. The most notable exception is the Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, but I suspect nuclear power is not viable for much else !
Cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships all run on some form of fossil fuels. And some 65% of the electricity generated in the USA is generated using coal. Hence, I believe that even the futuristic-seeming Electric Vehicles are "dirty" because their power also comes from fossil fuels.
"We"ll convert to Hydrogen !", some experts expound. Or "We should build high-tech nuclear plants !", other experts counter. There's a nightmare in the making !
There is no one single technology which can take over all of our energy requirements. I purposely state that no matter WHAT changes are made to whatever technology, our biggest challenge will be complacency. The change needs to be gradual, likely over one or more generations !
I keep wandering back to the paradigm. Is government-owned and regulated power the way to go ? Should we scale back and provide point-sources for power generation ? This would eliminate the need for a power-grid. Failures at one site wouldn't affect the next site.
If each site - be it a building, a block of buildings, a village - took care of it's own energy needs, then we wouldn't see the massive catastrophes like 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. We also wouldn't see the unsightly (OK - freaking UGLY) power-transmission towers which ensnarl the countryside. Efficient AND attractive - what a concept !
In most of my Renewable Energy postings, I focus on the local, small-scale types of projects. Individual photo-voltaic panels and solar hot-water systems are key to our success. I like micro-scale hydro and short-tower wind turbines. I like these as just about any homeowner could implement these solutions without incurring ridiculous costs. Further, they could easily become self-sufficient. Living "off grid" doesn't HAVE to mean you live in some rural, back-country area.
But one of the most important factors in these solutions is that each has it's own strengths and weaknesses. PV systems don't generate electricity at night. Wind turbines won't generate electricity on a calm day. You get the picture ?
Hence, most experts agree that you shouldn't rely on just one system to supply your energy needs. Further, the best designed systems also allow for the inclusion of a gas or diesel generator to provide supplemental power. As you can see, the best practice would be to implement multiple solutions !
Once we agree that there is no Silver Bullet, we can start to look at effective ways of implementing many (if not all) of these renewable-energy solutions.
The opinions expressed in this post are purely those of the author. Opinions are like noses; everyone has one and they are entitled to it !
No comments:
Post a Comment