For any given challenge facing a society, there seem typically to be at least two, diametrically opposed sorts of responses: 1) This challenge can't be overcome; or 2) How exactly will we overcome this challenge? Response type 1 has said: We can't cross this river, we can't cure this disease, we can't fly through the air, etc, etc, and response type 2 has enabled progress to occur.
Of course, there can be dishonest reasons for claiming that something is impossible. Perhaps some slave owners didn't really believe that it was impossible for society to exist without slavery, but claimed that it was impossible, because they were making lots of money as slave holders, and didn't want to face the economic competition which would come along with the abolition of slavery. Perhaps some steamship operators knew as well as anyone that airplanes were technologically feasible, but didn't want the economic competition of airlines.
Today, response type 1 says that we can't generate all of the electricity we need by means of renewable energy, that we will have to use natural gas and nuclear power as well, because we can't make all of the batteries we would need in order to store as much electricity as we would have to in order to make 100% renewable energy work. Do I really even need to mention that some people might intentionally exaggerate the technical challenges associated with 100% renewables because they're financially invested in petrochemicals and nuclear and don't want the competition from renewables, or was that already perfectly obvious to all of you?
Response type 2 is busy building better batteries, as well as ways to store energy made by renewable means in other forms than electricity, which can be converted into electricity when needed. Batteries and other energy-storage technologies are rapidly improving, and the potential for further improvement appears to be vast.
In the case of this challenge, there is also a response type 3, which says: we don't need any breakthroughs in energy-storage technology, the technology we have right now can enable us to rely 100% on renewable sources of power. Breakthroughs in energy-storage technology will be nice, of course, and give us still greater flexibility and a still more reliable grid, but renewables plus today's energy-storage technology can already add up to a more reliable grid than the one we have today, still powered mostly by oil, gas, coal and nukes. The lovably geeky Amory Lovins lays out a type 3 scenario in under 5 minutes in this TED talk video:
There are all sorts of people today purporting to be experts in energy technology, contradicting what other supposed experts are saying. I would encourage you to consider conflicting assertions, and think for yourself.
I'm much more inclined to believe the believers in 100% renewables than the nay-sayers, because the nay-sayers have already been proven dead wrong over and over, as renewable energy grows and grows and continues to actually function really well. I agree with those who say that the major obstacle to renewable energy is corrupt politics propping up old, highly-polluting means of generating energy which, in a truly unfettered free market, would no longer be able to compete.
No comments:
Post a Comment