Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them I hate to pull a Kobayashi Maru right in the first week of this project, but the challenge at hand, identification of "the world's most viable alternative energy solution" is most easily addressed by reprogramming the system. Instead of addressing the question of what will be the most viable alternative, let's consider what will be the least viable. The answer, of course, is anything derived from fossil fuels. The logical corollary, then, is that there will be no single alternative, but a panoply of options from which to choose, depending the resources available to each region or community.
First, let's dispense with the notion that coal and petroleum products will continue to supply a large portion of our energy needs into the medium and long-term future. There is now an emerging consensus among disinterested analysts that peak oil is here, and may indeed lie three years in the past. NASA's chief climatologist James Hansen even goes so far as to dismiss concerns about the future contributions to greenhouse-gas emissions from oil because he doesn't think there's enough left to make a difference. And though there are those who suspect coal reserves are overstated (peak coal?), coal is the worst GHG offender, and we're nowhere near ready to implement carbon capture and sequestration technologies to make it less offensive.
It is also clear that every alternative source of energy, in the form of fuels for transportation and electricity for everything else, has serious shortcomings as far as the energy density and efficiency are concerned. The simply fact is, no one technology can compare to coal and petroleum on either scale. But when applied to local circumstances and in the context of a world in which energy costs include greenhouse contributions, each alternative has advantages.
This will force society to diversify. Like a healthy ecosystem or a secure investment portfolio, heterogeneity is always the preferred approach. Even better, a diversified energy economy will almost certainly be a decentralized one, which should be a welcome development to anyone worried about national security issues. A whole lot of little generators mean major accidental or terrorist-initiated disasters are a whole lot less likely.
Wind turbines, like those planned by T. Bone Pickens in Texas (minus the foolish notion that the electricity they generate will free up natural gas for transportation), will play a role, though they will have to be accompanied by some kind of storage medium. Among the more promising candidates are compressed air in subterranean caverns, flow batteries, and even hydrogen fuel cells. Yes, making hydrogen is an efficient method, but most critics of fuels cells fail to grasp the basic economic reality that excess electricity is essentially free. There won't be an entire hydrogen economy any time soon, but like all clean and renewable alternatives, it will almost certainly make some contribution to the overall picture.
Solar power, in the form of both photovoltaics and thermal, is getting more efficient every day. Just last week MIT researchers announced a breakthrough "solar concentrator" technology that could make a big difference in bringing affordable panels to market.
Will we see a Grand Solar Plan that covers thousands of square miles of the American southwest with photovoltaics and delivers electricity to the rest of the country over high-voltage DC power lines? I doubt it, but not because of any technological or economic obstacle. I just see it as an old-fashioned, centralized approach that will soon be out of favor. Plus, all those new HVDC lines would be an attractive target to someone who wanted to play havoc.
I do expect to see PV farms supplying local markets, though. And more hot-water solar systems on individual homes, offices and factories. Yesterday I noticed that all of the Arby's restaurants here in western North Carolina have been outfitted with solar systems to displace the electricity needed to heat their kitchens' hot water. It's a small contribution, to be sure, but there are other examples springing up everywhere. In Massachusetts, a new law lets utilities install solar arrays on their customers' roofs instead of asking the customers to shoulder the high upfront costs. In Berkeley, Calif., the city is paying for the panels.
Then there's geothermal heating and airconditioning systems, which greatly reduce the energy requirement thanks to the relatively mild temperatures just a few feet underground. Coupled with a modest photovoltaic array and proper amortization schedule, getting off the grid becomes a whole lot more manageable.
Hydroelectricity even has some room to expand, although only at the mini- and micro-hydro scales in this country, seeing as how all the big rivers are already exploited to the max (and beyond). While we all love the idea of free flowing rivers, there are plenty of stretches were run-of-river dams that flood little if any land can power entire communities.
Add to the mix tidal, wave, even kite energy systems. It's all good.
On the transportation end of things, new airships, some designed as airfoils, greatly reduce the energy required to move people and things through the air, although we'll have to get used to a more leisurely pace. It should be possible to power them with biofuels produced in algae farms. On the ground, electrified passenger rail will eventually replace much of the transportation services now supplied by the private automobile, although those will by no means disappear.
It's a smorgasbord of solutions. In fact, one of the most important things we can do to bring about the coming energy revolution is abandon the one-size-fits-all approach with which we're so accustomed to solving problems. It's not so much a question of what technologies are the most viable, but how many technologies are we considering? The more choices the merrier.
One of my favorite metaphors has us replacing the silver bullet with silver buckshot.
Environment
Technology
Comments
The only downside to the "buckshot" approach is that there wouldn't be an alternative source that would be developed much more quickly than it otherwise would be. On the other hand, that's not a bad thing, since we would avoid depending on yet another single solution which might have unforeseen downsides. (E.g. "all resources focused on solar energy" -> "everyone starts using mostly solar energy" -> "global warming causes an unanticipated nearly total cloud cover over the planet" -> "we're screwed")
Posted by: Yoo | July 14, 2008 5:45 AM
One power 'source' that you did not mention is energy savings: most of the aspects of our life style can be easily modified towards efficiency. For example, good insulation on houses would save a lot of energy from heating and air conditioning. Not to mention that setting the AC temperature to 18 degrees in your office only to wear a sweater because you are now cold is stupid and wasteful in the first place, yet happens a lot.
Proper garbage recycling (paper, glass, metals, etc.) will greatly reduce the energy requirements for waste disposal and prodution of new goods - not to mention the fact that pollution will be reduced. Low energy consumption appliances are another way to go.
In short, we can greatly reduce our energy requirements by just not wasting electricity needlessly. Unfortunately these measures require people to change the way things are usually done. And any change in habit, no matter how trivial, will be resisted just on the basis that the old ways are better and we like them more.
Yet, we have no alternative, I guess.
Posted by: Andrea M | July 14, 2008 6:22 AM
You also don't mention nuclear power. No carbon dioxide emissions there. Nuclear waste issues, yes, but everything has a downside. And there's really not that much of it (if we can ever get the political will to move past the NIMBY syndrome).
But perhaps that's the problem? Irrational fear? Coal kills people daily; nuclear has been remarkably safe in developed countries, and modern reactor designs are better yet. But people aren't rational. Perhaps you didn't mention nuclear because you think there's just too much opposition from anti-nuclear activists?
But as you say, there's no magic bullet. We shouldn't just ignore any possibility. Yeah, it would be nice to have fusion power, but fission is what we've got right now. It needs to be PART of the energy mix.
Posted by: WCG | July 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Your article summarises where I have reached in my thinking on energy. Because energy is so integral to our life and the way we do business, changing any aspect of energy is going to have a knock on effect, which in turn will influence which energy systems are most appropriate which effects our way of doing things and so on. I think we are in for a period of great change and upheavel and I would not try to predict what energy supply and use will look like when it all settles down. I believe in the long term we will be able to harness the power around us to generate power as and when we need it and power lines will become a thing of the past but until then ?????
I would however, like to challenge you statement about hydrogen. It is not the cost of making hydrogen but its efficiency as an energy carrier as compared to alternatives. Short article comparing hydrogen to batteries here: http://pbjots.blogspot.com/2008/07/hydrogen-vs-electric-cars.html
Also to WCG, a reminder that nuclear is no more carbon emissions free than wind is. Figures vary, but this article is typical. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html Emissions for nuclear and most renewables are below 40g/kWh where is coal is over 900 and gas over 350.
Posted by: Phoebe Bright | July 14, 2008 8:57 AM
>"the world's most viable alternative energy solution"
Andrea M beat me to correct answer.
Switching to CFL bulbs typically cuts a household's lighting costs by 3/4; and lighting is typically 1/4 of a household's electric use. It actually costs money to leave the incandescent bulb in waiting for it to burn out than to switch it out and throw it away.
The one thing I can never figure out is homebuilders: Make the house you are building as energy efficient as possible and use it as a selling feature: e.g., "Yes, the price includes $5,000 of extra energy efficient features, which translates into $60,000 worth of energy savings over the course of your lifetime in this house."
Posted by: bartkid | July 14, 2008 10:32 AM
Yeah, surprised that there was no mention of nuclear. It's clearly back on the plan here in the UK. I really like the idea of solar thermal, which you mentioned, too: I hope this turns out to be as scalable as I think it could be.
There may also be some small part to play from anaerobic digestion, something my London borough is doing.
Posted by: Timinator | July 14, 2008 11:22 AM
While there certainly won't be a single solution, there also won't be a hundred solutions; there are lots of scaling advantages to producing large numbers of the same thing, so certain technologies are likely to wind up dominant. Wind, solar, biofuel, and nuclear seem like probable candidates. Geothermal is unlikely to expand much past where it's already used. Wave and tide power are likely to remain marginal indefinitely.
In terms of energy storage, you're leaving out a fairly important one: Pumped Storage. It's not the most efficient method, and it's not at all compact, but it's cheap and it probably outperforms hydrogen.
In terms of reducing energy consumption, the only thing that will reduce energy consumption is increased prices. It's a general rule of human nature that usage will expand to match capacity. Replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs just frees up capacity for some other role. This is not to say that energy savings are useless (some other use for the energy is almost certainly more useful than what an incandescent bulb does with the excess, namely produce heat), but its limits have to be understood.
Posted by: Anthony | July 14, 2008 12:33 PM
Waste-to-energy technology in general is very promising, and even with the most aggressive recycling and waste reduction, there will always be some residual waste to be disposed of. One of the most promising approaches is plasma gasification, such as used by PlascoEnergy. They have been running a demonstration plant in Ottawa, and will soon be building a full-sized plant. The resulting emissions are far less than from a landfill, much less any standard fossil-fuel plant.
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2008 12:45 PM
Your thought process is just as stilted as the idiots in congress, however, you demonstrate a desire for learning.
In your first paragraph you ask "what will be the least viable".
If you are going to ask yourself a question, answer it correctly. The answer is not the simplistic "fossil fuels", but any technology allowing anyone else to control your cost of operation or means of production.
The only viable future for World energy is the same answer we had at the beginning; do it ourselves. The problem is not being "on the grid", the problem is expecting too much from the grid and therefore rendering ourselves vulnerable to corporate manipulation of our need into their bloated short-sighted profit motive.
Biomass conversion (ethanol, etc) is the worst way to go. We have already used 95% of the topsoil in this country. Food is useful, at least, I like it. We do not need to destroy our soil to ride down the interstate in an air-conditioned living room.
A network of small scale user/providers from wind and sun into the grid is far less vulnerable to any influence from corporate non-feasance or terrorism. The key is front loading the production cost. Yes, it is much more expensive to build the required infrastructure, but your operational expenses are a known quantity. No one can raise the price of wind or sun.
You want storage capacity? Try using excess wind or solar (or both) to power an on-site compressor to make liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen (and all the other gases in the atmosphere). All are easily stored, transported and comprise a salable commodity.
Shell has a bad reputation for corporate excess and abuse of natural resources. I can change that.
We can start today if you wish.
Posted by: bob | July 14, 2008 4:35 PM
What do you see as energy alternatives for those of us living in Arctic regions? Solar is much less effective here, particularly in the winter, when our energy consumption (due to heating and lighting) is highest. We also (at least here in Alaska) don't have much in the way of infrastructure for long-distance electricity transmission, particularly for the rural regions, which depend majorly on fuel oil, kerosene, and propane. I've yet to hear a good alternative to fossil fuels that will work here (except for nuclear plants which our environmental regulations will not ever let us build).
Posted by: Kevin C. | July 15, 2008 2:43 AM
Arctic regions have some unique challenges, but nothing that can't be handled. I spent five years in the Northwest Territories, including a stint north of the Arctic Circle and have some thoughts on the matter.
First, there is no reason why solar photovoltaics and thermal should not be used. I spent a year on a houseboat in Yellowknife that used almost entirely PV for our electricity, supplemented only in the depths of winter by a gas generator for a few hours a week. Propane supplied heat, cooking fuel and the on-demand hot-water heater.
The rest of Yellowknife had even lower carbon footprints, as the entire city is powered by a run-of-river dam on the nearby Snare river.
Alaska has similar opportunities. Wind power is working in places like Kotzebue, last I checked and while icing can increase maintenance costs, there is no reason wind power can't be widely introduced North of 60.
But for some communities, there simply won't be a cost-effective option. I would solemnly recommend depopulating those places on the planet where you can't find a decent clean power source. Fortunately, those are few in number.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | July 15, 2008 8:57 AM
I really enjoyed this post and agree with the buckshot analogy... more on that tomorrow ;)
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 15, 2008 12:51 PM
I live in the West, where there are a large number of hydro projects. On several of these projects, during winter months, there is less demand for electricity, but far greater amounts of water available. This is particularly true for the Columbia River.
During those months, instead of simply letting the water pass through, why not spin up idle generators and use that capacity to perform hydrolysis? Yes, I know that's not the cheapest way to get hydrogen, and that may be the biggest barrier; costs. But this is "excess" water, just passing through.
Then, compress and store the hydrogen on-site, perhaps for commercial sale, perhaps for fuel-cells on- and off-site, perhaps for internal-combustion engines.
Again, I suspect the answer is, "Because it would cost too much", but I don't mind hearing other answers.
I think you can "localize" energy production, too. Southern California and Florida could use nuclear power plants; part of the year/day, these plants could generate electricity to desalinate water and/or perform hydrolysis, and part of the year/day the electricity could go straight into the grid... IF we could get people to more readily accept nuclear energy.
I also think coal gassification sounds attractive, in theory at least. Do you reject that as a possible minor contributor to meeting energy needs?
Posted by: MikeM | July 15, 2008 1:38 PM
MikeM: using excess hydroelectric capacity to electrolyze water and generate hydrogen is exactly the kind of thing we need to pursue. Bang on.
But coal gasification? Not a chance, for two reasons: it take energy, and you still end up with nightmare landscapes in Appalachia.
Nuclear, meanwhile, is too expensive and so far we haven't found an acceptable way to deal with the waste.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | July 15, 2008 2:05 PM
"Instead of addressing the question of what will be the most viable alternative, let's consider what will be the least viable. The answer, of course, is anything derived from fossil fuels. The logical corollary, then, is that there will be no single alternative, but a panoply of options from which to choose, depending the resources available to each region or community."
Sorry, but I do not think "logical corollary" means what you think it means.
Posted by: Dustin | July 16, 2008 1:07 PM
I spent a year on a houseboat in Yellowknife that used almost entirely PV for our electricity, supplemented only in the depths of winter by a gas generator for a few hours a week. Propane supplied heat, cooking fuel and the on-demand hot-water heater.
The rest of Yellowknife had even lower carbon footprints, as the entire city is powered by a run-of-river dam on the nearby Snare river.
You might have wanted to get off that houseboat once in a while, stroll up 50th, hang a left at the YK Centre, and kept going up the road a ways to Jackfish Lake. You did notice that 27 megawatt diesel power plant sitting there, didn't you?
But for some communities, there simply won't be a cost-effective option. I would solemnly recommend depopulating those places on the planet where you can't find a decent clean power source. Fortunately, those are few in number.
How kind of you. I can tell you now the collective Inuit population is giving you the finger.
Posted by: KeithM | July 16, 2008 3:44 PM
Anthony mentioned pumpback storage. I did some of the environmental work on the Clarence Cannon Dam project in Missouri. I understood that pumpback is economically feasable if peak period power could be sold for 3 cents, and off peak power bought for 2 cents. I looked at the Wikipedia entry and found it quite accurate. One thing to remember about hydropower is that reservoirs and rivers are multiuse, and thus difficult to manage for maximum energy production.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | July 16, 2008 4:35 PM
I seem to be a thread behind...
I mentioned the term "site-specific" generation in the last thread, which is exactly what we are talking about here.
The key is just using whatever the natural energy resources are available and efficiently tapped. Fossil fuels may even be part of that mix for a long while, since in some places coal or natural gas is very easy to tap. Overall, a diversity of options is critical.
How we get there is a bit tricky though. The most important step is to account for externalities so options can be fairly weighed... and a carbon tax is the first step.
Another important step is to modernize the power grid and regulatory framework such that small and medium scale decentralized generation at least not disfavored (favoring it would be a good idea IMO). Building big power plants will always be technologically conservative... if you are spending that much cash on a facility, it better work exactly as expected.
I'd also like to reiterate another suggestion:
Distinguish between energy sources and fuels. Fuels are a much more difficult problem. While I don't think we will stop relying on fossil fuels for transportation anytime soon, increased efficiency and hybrid approaches (using electricity and batteries when possible) can go a long way.
We have many good options for power generation now with more and more being developed rapidly. Yeah, the silver buckshot metaphor is nice... but really it is more like a big box of silver tools where picking the right one for the job at hand (where you are and what the power demands are) is key.
Posted by: travc | July 16, 2008 8:19 PM
People living in the arctic often have a host of energy resources on hand. Hydro, geothermal, and wind may well be good options.
Quite frankly though, if you are living in the arctic you probably should have a damn good reason to be up there. If you are at a location without a natural power source, you are going to be dependent of fuel as a primary energy source... and as I mentioned, fuel is a tougher problem. If you can't afford the fuel costs, you shouldn't be there.
I have nothing against a few people depending on fossil fuels (though eventually H2 or some other fuel produced using energy from a sustainable power source is better). The odd Inuit village, lodge, or research station isn't a really a problem.
Posted by: travc | July 16, 2008 8:30 PM
1. No mention of nuclear power at all? Really?
2. As far as fuel goes, what about a resurgence of electric car development? There are a few companies that are taking those cars to a whole new level as of late. For most commutters those cars would drastically lower day-to-day costs.
Posted by: Shan | September 21, 2008 6:42 AM