There’s a lot of noise these days about alternative fuels. Most of it is due to the fact that people are finally realizing the weather is changing rather drastically and that we humans might be responsible for it. In the US, there’s is a big push for bio-fuels, primarily distilled from grains such as corn (ethanol or E86). Elsewhere, it is created from other crops (that usually are inedible). There is also a big push to harness wind energy, hydropower and to a lesser extent, tidal energy. Does anyone else think these are stupid ideas? We’e practically making the same mistakes we made with fossil fuels in that we’re being short-sighted. I don’t know what asses came up with these ingenious alternative fuels, but here’s my limited (and perhaps uninformed) take on the aforementioned choices.
Bio-fuel made from corn has stupid written all over it. For one, it means diverting a source of food for fuel. There are millions of people starving around the world and we want to decrease the available supply of food in order to convert it into fuel? Furthermore, while it may be renewable, it is still a combustible fuel. We need to get away from combustion as it is inefficient and polluting (see THIS article on how ethanol is created and why it might not be the best alternative).
Bio-fuels made from other sources have similar drawback, i.e. they have to be burned. What is tying us down to combustion as the source of our energy? Short-term, I agree, it is a good choice as a renewable fuel, but they reason we’re in this mess in the first place isn’t because we made a poor short-term choice. It’s because we didn’t have the foresight to see what fossil fuels would do to the planet in the long run. How about we don’t make the same mistake again? Small scale, bio-fuels might make sense but as a replacement for gasoline in the transport industry, I think it has disaster written all over it. Recent UN research seems to indicate the same.
Hydropower has been around for a long long time and on a small level is sustainable with little ecological damage (think a quaint water mill of some sort). The dams of today, however, are a different story. Monstrous wonder of engineering, not only do they inundate thousands of hectares of land, often submerging natural habitat, displacing wildlife (and people), they permanently alter the course of rivers, effectively blocking the planet’s blood supply. Alluvial soil is prevented from reaching downstream, depriving the land of regeneration and fish stocks and wildlife numbers are greatly affected. I mean honestly, if you think diverting of stopping the flow of a river is a good way to generate sustainable energy, I think it’s time to hit middle school geography and social sciences again.
Wind power seems to be in the headlines these days and one of the largest companies in the world is India-based Suzlon Energy. For starters, wind farms aren’t exactly ideal because they require specific weather conditions in order to be efficient. On top of that, if they were to become widespread, imagine the impact on the weather. In taking energy from the winds that blow around the planet, we will again be altering the delicate natural balance that the planet operates around. Widespread wide farming would probably result in global climate catastrophe ten times quicker than the use of fossil fuels. Many places in the world depend on the winds to bring much needed precipitation and so on. We’re certainly not advanced enough to mess with wind patterns in a knowledgeable manner. Still, on a small level, wind farms should be acceptable.
Tidal energy is in a similar position. By harnessing the power of the oceans, it’s quite possible we are altering the way in which the oceans work, what with sea currents and the like being critical to fish stocks and weather patterns. There’s hardly enough knowledge on the effects of tidal patterns and ocean currents vis a vis our planet to justify any large scale interference for the sake of power generation. Furthermore, most current tidal energy plants require cordoning off some part of a bay (that has a large tidal variation). I’m certain this would affect the breeding grounds of fish and the local marine ecosystem. Other systems do exist namely offshore turbines which are basically wind turbines that harness ocean currents and tidal activity. Same caution as wind turbines applies. Large scale harnessing of such forces would undoubtedly alter the ecosystem but a small scale application could certainly work.
So basically, we should be broadening the sources from which we can generate power instead of sticking to one. Jack of all trades as opposed to Master of one type of philosophy. As I see it, only two alternative fuels come to mind as true global alternatives. Solar and nuclear power.
Yes, nuclear power has the potential to be disastrous in the event of a calamity such as Chernobyl. But there are steps we can take to minimize such risk. For starters, we should build the bloody nuclear plants deep underground (a la the Hive from Resident Evil) so that in the event of a meltdown or worse, the whole facility becomes a glass tomb. Nuclear energy has a good return on energy and besides, in a few decades, we’ll have solved the fusion issue and will be able to obtain unlimited, clean energy from non-radioactive fuels (a reason why we should all support the efforts of ITER). I’m purposely glossing over the cost of producing more nuclear plants which is quite high but I mean, what is the price of our planet really? In any case, if you want some counterpoints to the nuclear option check out THIS and THIS (four part article) link.
And solar power, to me, seems to be the choice that is too good to be true. The biggest side effect of solar panels is the shade it generates. And cor, in these ever warming times, I could use a bit of shade, innit? With ever more efficient solar panels being developed and released (the latest of which are part organic), the price per square foot dropping and more and more sunlight available as the planet warms, solar panels seem to be a fantastic way forward. Every house could and should have solar panel roofs to make that step towards an energy-self-sufficient lifestyle. Imagine poor, dry but sunny African countries as home to massive solar farms. It could drag them out of the poverty in the same way oil has funded growth in the Arabian peninsula. A solution to our energy problem and decreasing poverty in Africa, now that is a plan.
We have undoubtedly begun the new century by defining that the big wars will be fought over energy (oil or whatever else) and religion. Wars spurned on because of religious conflicts have been around since the beginning of religion itself but the increasingly brutal quest for energy is relatively new. A cheap, renewable source of energy would be a masterstroke for the human race. Let’s get cracking.
Popularity: 21% [?]
