Sorry for the long read. I'm not a very good writer, and I'm trying to make a point:)
Years ago, after finishing my undergraduate degree in mathematics, I joined a research team at Emory University working with mathematical models of biological systems, particularly bacterial infections in large populations. We demonstrated, through our models, that there is a cost associated with resistance. That is, if you're a bacterium, and you are resistant to antibiotics, there is a cost - you must give up something for that benefit.
So what on earth does this have to do with wind mills? It's a simple analogy actually, but to explain, let's stick with 'bugs' for a moment.
Like all life on earth, bacteria reproduce genetically. Rabbits beget rabbits, bacteria beget bacteria. Every now and then, there's a mistake - genetic instructions are not followed, and a bacterium does not look just like it's father. This is called a mutation. Mutations are rare, but they happen. Mutant bacteria are generally weaker (but sometimes better) in some way than their parent. That is, there is a cost to not following the rules.
Continuing with this theme, let's use my body as an example. Say that I have an ear infection, and there are only two strains of said infection in my left ear - 1 regular strain, the other mutated. They exist in a 9 to 1 ratio respectively. Why that ratio? Because of the cost. The mutated bacteria have traded 'fertility' for resistance. They're resistant to antibiotics (good), but can't get it on (bad). The more popular variety are such because they are efficient. They do well when things are 'normal'.
Okay, now it's time for wind mills. Oil and coal are the most prominent sources of energy because they're efficient. They present the cheapest, easiest way to provide energy on demand in the first part of the 21st century. Solar and wind on the other hand, are not efficient. If they were, capitalists (motivated by profit) would have made them more than 3% of our domestic energy production. In other words, the 'wild type' (the dirty stuff, oil and coal) are such because they work. Solar and wind are not because of their cost. They're is a cost to being green. Get it?
So you've got this guy out there now, T. Boone Pickens. He's on board with Gore and the gang, ringing the bell for wind power now. What he doesn't tell you in his commercials is that he is an entrepreneur, and he's been trying to make money at the wind game for a while now. It ain't workin' out for him, so he needs congress (us) to subsidize his capital venture. We need to get off of foreign oil... to help him make a profit... because wind power can't turn a profit (pun intended) on its own! Are you kidding me?!!!
Again, wind and solar are NOT (popular) because they are NOT (efficient)! They are the inefficient mutants. They need an antibiotic in the name of legislation to beat the wild type, coal and oil. Are we willing to wait for technology to make our energy decisions for us, or will we simply pay more for energy (and drive this economy into the ground) because we must be green?
So Mr. Pickens, Vice President Gore, Mr. Moore: please tell everyone the inconvenient truth - that your plans involve energy costs like we've never seen. You all have different vehicles, but you're headed in the same direction. I for one, am just fine where I am, thank you very much!
P.S. I believe that the need for energy will define this century more than any other issue. It's a constant that can't be avoided, from Lake Victoria to Reston Town Center. So I will be talking more about this issue in the coming months. Particularly, I'll address the third world's need to progress, and how in the world they will do it on dark, windless nights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
interesting read. however as a chemical engineer, i feel somewhat obligated to give my input.
my largest issue is making oil and coal seem like the "correct" or "right" choice through the bacteria analogy. if anything i would say that solar energy (coupled with other technologies) is just that, since it is the hot reservoir that powers the engine that is planet earth.
another thing is that you have to remember coal and oil went through a large amount of invention and innovation to get to where they are today. during the industrial revolution, we were burning coal just to boil water. that makes me, cry as a chemE. coal had since the 1700s and gas powered cars since the early 1900s to get as efficient as they are, and to be honest, more could still be done (some would claim things havent been done due to conspiracy theories, etc.). solar energy only got a CHANCE (it didnt start at this time) at the advent of quantum mechanics and the photoelectric effect in the 1920s.
i just read this article this morning actually. (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41224/113/) id say 41.1% efficiency of a technology thats only been around for a maximum of 80 years (im pretty sure its less than half of 80, but im just saying it to be consistent) is pretty good. give it some time.
im not saying that there arent money making barons who want to exploit future technologies, but oil and coal really arent all that for various reasons. hold out for those selfless few who believe there are better options for energy for various reasons (like myself). we're close, i promise.
Fred,
We discussed this in some detail at lunch today, but I wanted to post some comments for the readers that didn't get a chance to hear our conversation.
First of all, Timon made some excellent points. Burning fossil fuels to produce energy has been the status quo for over 100 years, and because of this the technology behind it has had the opportunity to mature over a long period of time. This leaves the relatively new alternatives such as wind, solar, biofuel, geothermal, tidal, etc. at a large disadvantage. Also, oil companies currently receive more subsidies from the US government than all renewable energy technologies combined. Even with the current tax breaks and subsidies, the playing field is still tilted in favor of fossil fuels.
Secondly, fossil fuels are a limited resource that humans will eventually no longer be able to exploit for cheap energy. Oil production will soon peak (if it has not already), and global demand will continue to rise as China and India develop into industrial giants. “Out of Gas”, by David Goodstein gives a great synopsis of the coming energy crisis, and it's a book that I think everyone should read. Coal and Natural Gas will last a bit longer, but their supplies are limited as well. Renewable energies like the ones I listed previously will be available long after we exhaust our supply of fossil fuels.
With my previous points in mind, I agree with Fred that we will be seeing a sharp increase in the cost of energy in the not so distant future. As cheap fossil fuels become scarce, we will eventually be forced to convert to less efficient forms of energy. The main decision that remains is how we decide to handle this massive transition from cheap, non-renewable energy based on mature technologies to more expensive renewable energy that is based off of comparatively young technology.
The first option is to depend solely on the free market to determine which energy sources provide us with energy, but that approach would be incredibly myopic. As fossil fuel supplies dwindled we would be forced into a brutally abrupt transition and would likely face power shortages as we attempt to convert from the vast majority of our energy being produced from nonrenewable sources to 100% of our energy being produced from renewable sources that is based on technology that is still underdeveloped and vastly less efficient than it could be. This transition would take place over a very short time frame and would likely be very painful as consumers felt the shock of rapidly escalating energy costs.
Alternatively, we could invest heavily into renewable energy sources immediately with a combination of subsidies, tax breaks, and government funded R&D. Although this will certainly cost taxpayers and consumers more in the short term, I hope we can agree that it is much more appealing than the alternative. The faster we can switch over to a country and a world based on renewable energy, the sooner we can stop burning environmentally damaging fossil fuels, and the more oil that we can save for our progeny to produce petrochemicals (plastics, industrial chemicals, modern pharmaceuticals, etc.).
Our current situation is somewhere in between the two scenarios examined above. Right now our government and even some private corporations have wisely decided to invest into renewable energy sources, but in 2007, a meager 8.5% of our electricity was produced from renewable sources (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html). As I said before, the more heavily we decide to invest in renewable energy now, the more gradual and smooth the transition will be for ourselves and our posterity. We need more renewable energy subsidies and more money invested into renewable energy R&D, and we need this action to take place sooner, rather than later. That said, we need to intelligently invest our money, and focus on the technologies that are most promising and most proven.
We also need to ramp up efforts to increase efficient use of power. Recycling aluminum, glass, plastic, and paper products, as well as installing Energy Star appliances, Fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation, photovoltaic cells, and solar powered water heaters are steps that most homeowners can take to reduce energy consumption in their daily lives. Improvements to our power grid such as intelligent monitoring of loads could also help. Conservation efforts not only reduce your personal consumption, but if they are undertaken by the population as a whole we would see a decrease in total energy demand, reducing energy costs even further.
Another incentive to reduce consumption and expeditiously switch to renewable energy is the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. All fossil fuel burning power plants release nitrous oxides which contribute to acid rain. Coal fired plants emit large amount of sulfur oxides which also contribute to acid rain, as well as a large amount of mercury (something you seemed to be concerned about in an earlier post) which gets into the food chain and eventually finds it way back to humans, which is known to cause neurological disorders. There is also the issue of all of the carbon dioxide emissions, but I think that is a discussion that merits its own thread.
P.S. I really like the analogy that you used despite its imperfections.
Post a Comment