Renewable Energy Is Not a Free Lunch, But That Doesn’t Make It Worthless

Ryan Radecki, from The Green Room at Ohio University, writes:

I agree with some of your proposed ideas on the problems with environmentally friendly forms of energy, and I used your comments about having no free lunch for energy in my essay. I also feel that renewable energy forms by themselves are not helping, but the combination of many types of renewable sources is our future. Would you mind reading my blog at http://ryansfuturefuels.blogspot.com I would like to have your perspective.

Ryan:

I agree with the basic idea, i.e., the pros and cons / no free lunch concept. But I think your perspective here is too harsh and a little unfair.  For example, to say that the various forms of renewable energy are not helping is not true.

To take a more specific  example, let’s look at what you write about wind. First of all, some of your facts are wrong, like the amount of land required. By my calcs, you’re off on the pessimistic side by a factor of about 5.  But more importantly, let’s be fair and note:

• Only about 1-2% of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads and other equipment. The rest remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching.

• Turbines will eventually be put offshore.

• The problem we’re trying to solve has externalities that are immeasurably huge by comparison. As the gentleman I interviewed for my chapter on wind in my first book (Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies), Dr. Amir Mikhail, CTO of Clipper Windpower told me, “There are people who would rather chop the top off of a mountain (and burn the coal, contributing to lung disease and long-term environmental damage) than put a wind turbine on top of it. Good luck trying to explain that to me.”

Thanks for writing, and keep up the good work.