Alternative Electric Power Generation

There is an outfit out there known as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).  In the July 2012 issue of its magazine, Spectrum, is an article on ramping up alternative energy—solar, wind and biomass.  By Professor Vaclav Smil, of the University of Manitoba, it is titled "A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy:  It takes several lifetimes to put a new energy system into place, and wishful thinking can’t speed things along."  And that sums up the article.  Facts, figures and charts, and the never ending question of if Senator Ted Kennedy loved Martha's Vineyard more than he loved the environment.

The comments provide the rebuttal.  For example:

The ULTIMATE goal is not global warming, it's climate change, which is not the same thing (and climate aside, emissions are bad for a number of other reasons).  
 
The IMMEDIATE goal is peak oil mitigation, and fossil fuel peaks in general. Peak oil is in the PAST not the future.  
 
Low energy prices are not, and should not be a goal. Higher prices now encourage earlier adoption of technologies which will be cheaper in the future.  
 
All the skeptics A) are short-sighted and selfish, and B) assume that business-as-usual will prevail in the oil world, which it won't.

So, it is the skeptic's skeptic.

One of the things I took away from the article was the results of a survey by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2009, giving our transmission grid a D+ score.

In the long run, we need to reduce energy demand by more efficient use of electricity and we need to move to more sustainable sources of energy.  But we also have to consider how we can help India and China reach our level of economic development, but without consuming all the fossil fuel in the world.  Currently about ten percent of our domestic coal production goes to Asia.

I guess the good news is that there are still challenges for our current young people to overcome in the future.

Regards  —  Cliff