In reviewing this blog’s history of Posts I am aware that some will see a contradiction between my strong support for a renewable energy future and my acceptance of the inevitability of fracking for shale gas and oil (see ‘Fracking: The Promise And The Problems’) and my reluctant support for building the Keystone XL pipeline (see ‘Keystone XL Pipeline: A Memorandum To The President’). Here is a bit more of the thinking that has gone into those positions, which make sense at least to me.
In an ideal world I would move as rapidly as possible to an energy system based largely on renewable energy in all it’s various forms (solar, wind, biomass, …..) and reduce our current dependence on carbon-rich fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Unfortunately, renewable energy is not yet ready to assume such a role, which will take money and time. We also cannot deprive people of access to energy during the transition period. Today’s global energy system is largely dependent upon fossil fuels (coal and natural gas for electricity, oil for transportation) and changing this picture with its in-place infrastructure and vested interests will not be easy or quick. This puts me in the class of ‘pragmatic’ renewable energy advocates, but one who believes that we can move much more rapidly toward that future with appropriate national energy policies in place. I have commented on the need for such a policy in earlier blogs (see ‘The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy’ and ‘We Need A Carbon Tax’).
One final thought: as I think about this apparent ‘conflict’ in my views I am aware of my strong feeling that, ultimately, the real villain in this piece is ourselves with our insatiable and ever-growing demand for energy services. Some people lack even minimal access to such services and deserve more. Many of us have easy access to such services and need to use that access more wisely. Reducing demand growth and even overall demand would reduce the pressure for new fossil fuel and electricity resources, reduce international tensions, and allow a more stable and rapid transition to the inevitable and highly desired renewable energy future. I hope many others will comment on these complex issues as well.
If you were speaking on behalf of the 80% of the countries around the world who regard global warming as of secondary importance, you would not be so delicate about continuing to burn fossil fuel. Like them, you would be more concerned about world poverty and would not want to harm your economy by trying to cut back on fossil fuels. With enough coal for 500 years and frackable gas for 300 years, why should you?
Now renewable energy [like nuclear energy which costs twice as much] is mainly to save fossil fuel and everyone wants to do that – including the fuel producing countries.
[Just ask the oil, gas and coal producers if they would like to find new reserves of the fuel they produce and you will find they are even more enthusiastic than anyone else, because they need to prolong their existing livelihoods. Then point out to any of them that they have a substitute already in their country which will extend the reserves of their fuel, by using solar or wind to save fuel, and you will find that they too want to install renewables.]
Of course, if you were speaking for the other 20% of countries [the EU and a few OECD ones] you would still go strongly for renewables to help stop global warming which you regard as of primary importance.
So by all means, Allan, have your hand wringing and heart searching about fossil fuels but you don’t need your enthusiasm for renewables to be affected whichever way the argument goes.
Good to have you back as a commenter on this blog – you were missed!
Re your attached comment on fossil fuels vs. renewables: I take no issue with what you say – there is more than one way to look positively at the contributions of renewables – but I see myself as in both your camps: understanding the imperative to meet many people’s needs for more energy to improve their lives during the transition to a future largely dependent on renewable resources, and the need to limit carbon emissions to the extent we can. Life is tradeoffs, as we all learn eventually.
My point is that there is no trade-off. You evidently go for renewables whether you are concerned about emissions or not. Only 20% of countries are but 100% go for renewables.
Agree about going for renewables – I’ve devoted my career to that end – but don’t forget the people with little energy and real short-term needs.