Future Winds

I'm confused. I read some experts - like Lester Brown - optimistically opine that clean, renewable energy will easily meet our current and future requirements for energy. But then I read other experts that say this is naive and pollyannerish, and that is impossible to generate the same amount of energy from renewables as the millions of years of trapped sunlight to be found in the fossil fuels we have become dependent on, even after we reduce our consumption and improve energy efficiencies everywhere we can. Some say it's impossible to make up the shortfall without nuclear (and no - I'm not just talking about nuclear energy lobbyists, I'm talking about people looking at this scientifically).

 

And what about the arguments that there isn't enough steel to produce the massive numbers of wind generators required, or enough precious metals required to produce the necessary number of solar panels? Or that the scale required for both solar panels and wind turbines could have an impact on the weather in themselves?

 

Who's math is wrong? I'd love someone to clear this up for me. With facts, and references. Thanks.

And the author only presents one side of the story. Why should I believe his perspective over those from other authors who make the exact opposite arguments (all backed by their own "data")?

I want to believe renewables can viably replace non-renewables, but I don't think we should uncritically accept any article at face value just because it supports that position.

 

I don't think acting out of wishful thinking is the best way to find the answers to my questions.

Hi gang, Allow me to rain on this alternative energy parade. Let's ask our selves, "Why do we want this?" Most Americans would simply say the old, energy independence, no more middle eastern oil arguement. Lot's of people here are going to say "clean energy" and stop global warming. I am assuming you all want to stop global warming because you care about the Earth. Not a bad thing at all, but this article and most of the comments are forgetting that My home is the desert and is now being referred to as "the Saudi Arabia of Sun". Just about every acre of public land has been claimed by a green energy company for a potential solar farm. In the mountains, it is wind mills. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has used the word "wasteland" to describe our desert. This of course, is not true. Deserts have as much, if not more biodiversity than northern forests, but cultural bias tells people to write it off. The point is, it is not green to scrape up hundreds of square miles of public lands so we can purchas our energy from a power company. Plus, powerlines will be run through some of our most scenic public lands, which include wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges and, yes, national parks. The Bush people ran energy corridors through some national park lands in the Mojave Desert and the democrats said little. Not to mention all the private residence located in the way of these transmission lines. You know there is much talk of eminent domain. Plus desert plants and soils down to the fungi level store carbon. CAM plants and mycorhizzae fungus in desert ecosystems hold carbon. Scraping it up will release the carbon and we have added to the greenhouse effect. How about using rooftops,solar canopies above parking lots, disturbed lands? There are so many ways to minimize the amount of land that is disturbed, but none of the so called environmentalists are talking about this. Al Gore, Robert Kennedy Jr, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club along with McCain and Obama have all decided that my home needs to be sacrificed to save the rest of the planet. How noble of them! Robert Kennedy is heavily invested into Bright Source Solar Corperation, giving him a direct financial interest in an approved application for the horrible environmentally disastrous 7000 acre Ivanpah thermal solar project in Ivanpah Valley, California which is prime desert tortoise habitat. I am a NIMBY (Not in my backyard) and proud of it. Out back yard contains wildlife habitat, wetlands and some of the the last open space in the US. It is stupid to trash it so we can save the world. When you have to resort to this much destruction to be "environmental" you have failed. No proposed solar farms will leave an inch of vegetation. They will all need scarce ground water to operate, and all are so far from the cities that they will require oil not only to manufacture the parts, but also to get people to work. That plus the loss of so much organic matter may actually make the Earth hotter. We can and will stop some of the solar farms in our area. I know people who run their entire homes on solar alone. Not one acre of habitat is destroyed this way. Look at all the rooftops in a city like Las Vegas alone. We should not have to destroy our deserts, mountains and bird life (wind farms are killers of birds) so we can buy our energy from the next big company. That is not green at all, that is a farce.