[extropy-chat] FWD (SK) A skeptical look at green technology
Terry W. Colvin
fortean1 at mindspring.com
Sat Oct 1 03:01:28 UTC 2005
Don't shoot the messenger...
If I see one more article about how wonderful alternative energy is compared
to oil, I'm gonna flip. Alternative energy sources can be good — very good
in fact. And it's pretty obvious that we're going to need them, and that our
dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) is a Bad Thing.
But accepting that does not mean accepting that any kind of alternative
energy is by default a good thing.
To *be* a good thing, it has to have three properties: 1) It has to help
reduce our dependence on oil, 2) It has to be no worse for the environment,
and 3) It has to be economically practical.
Many of the things touted meet one or even two of those criteria. Solar
panels, for example. They can reduce our need for oil, at least in certain
regions, and they're certainly not bad for the environment. But they're
prohibitively expensive. If you spend the money to make your home
solar-powered, you probably won't recoup your costs for at least 15 years,
which approaches the lifespan of the panels.
I realize that these days, taking a moderate position on anything makes you
the enemy of everyone who has an extreme view. But green isn't alwaysgood,
and oil isn't always bad.
Certainly we need to clean up our act big time and find viable sources of
alternative energy. Depending on the Saudis — and oil — for our energy needs
But we also have to keep in mind that every one of these alternative-energy
sources comes at a cost, which is something people seem to forget. They hear
the phrase "alternative energy" and automatically assume it's got to be
And this makes them no better than the people who hear it and think it's a
waste of time.
Two seemingly "green" technologies that pop up again and again are ethanol
and electric cars. Both are touted by well-meaning people as good forthe
environment and a way to reduce our oil dependence, especially as oilprices
continue to rise.
I've written in detail about ethanol before, but it deserves a rehash. The
Senate, you see, is considering a bill that would require a doubling of the
amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline at the pump.
They *say* it's about oil dependence and the environment, but it's not. It's
about buying votes from farmers by artificially creating demand for crops —
ethanol coming, in large part, from corn.
But there are a bunch of problems with ethanol. First, it doesn't have as
much energy as gasoline, which means it takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol
to get you as far as one gallon of gas.
Ethanol also requires a lot to produce it — 26 pounds of corn to get a
gallon, in fact. And growing corn requires lots of water and fertilizer and
pesticide, not to mention the energy required to distill it into ethanol.
And by-products of that distillation include (according to the EPA) acetic
acid, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and methanol, all of which are pumped
into the air. Yum.
It boils down to this: Ethanol sounds good, but the energy required to
produce it, and the pollutants it generates, mean it's arguably worsefor
the environment than gasoline, especially considering the cleanlinessof
On the other hand, even with the acreage, water, fertilizer, and pesticide,
ethanol has one big thing going for it: It's not produced by the Saudis.
Hearing the un-researched praises heaped on ethanol sets my teeth on edge,
but hearing the supposed ecological wonders of electric cars makes mewant
to bang my head against the desk. (I'm talking about true electric vehicles,
Electric cars are dirty. In fact, not only are they dirty, they mighteven
be *more* dirty than their gasoline-powered cousins.
People in California love to talk about "zero-emissions vehicles," but
people in California seem to be clueless about where electricity comes from.
How else can you explain a state that uses more and more of it while not
allowing new power plants to be built?
Quoth Schoolhouse Rock: "Power plants most all use fire to make it:
electricity, electricity/Burnin' fuel and usin' steam, they generate
electricity — electricity."
Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we
get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something —
usually a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, diesel) but also by heat generated in
nuclear power plants. (There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as
well, but by far we get electricity by burning something.)
In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars.
It's just the coal is burned somewhere else so it *looks* clean.
It isn't. It's as if the California Greens are covering their eyes — "If I
can't see it, it's not happening."
But it's worse than that. Gasoline is an incredibly efficient way to power a
vehicle; a gallon of gas has a lot of energy in it. But when you takethat
gas (or another fuel) and first use it to make electricity, you wastea nice
chunk of that energy, mostly in the form of wasted heat — at the generator,
through the transmission lines, etc.
In other words, a gallon of gas may propel your car 25 miles. But the
electricity you get from that gallon of gas won't get you nearly as far — so
electric cars burn more fuel than gas-powered ones.
If our electricity came mostly from nukes, or geothermal, or hydro, or
solar, or wind, then an electric car truly would be clean. But for
political, technical, and economic reasons, we don't use much of those
energy sources. We should, but we don't — that means those electriccars
have a dirty past.
Furthermore, today's cars are very, very clean. I'd be willing to bet
they're a lot cleaner than coal-burning power plants. And that's not even
getting into whatever toxic niceties are in those electric cars' batteries —
stuff that will eventually end up in a landfill.
And finally, when cars are the polluters, the pollution is spread across all
the roads. When it's a power plant, though, all the junk is in one place.
Nature is very good at cleaning up when things are not too concentrated, but
it takes a lot longer when all the garbage is in one spot.
Being green is good. We've squandered our space program on things like the
International Space Money Pit, so we won't be leaving the planet verysoon.
It's what we've got and we should do better at taking care of it.
But that doesn't mean we should jump on any technology labeled "green"
anymore than investors should have jumped on any stock labeled "tech"in the
1990s. We know what happened there.
'Email to a friend'
Paul W Harrison, TESL
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
More information about the extropy-chat