There Is "No Free Lunch” in Renewable Energy, But It's a Cheap Date Considering the Alternatives
Here’s a good discussion of what I call the “no free lunch” theory of renewable energy: everything we do, whether it’s solar, wind, hydrokinetics, etc., comes with a non-negligible ecological cost. The issue, obviously, is objectively identifying all costs – ecological, financial, and human (e.g., disease and death stemming from various types of energy generation and consumption), and using these data to make fair-minded decisions about our energy future.
I happen to have read this article the same day I edited the transcript of my interview with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute for my upcoming book, “Renewable Energy – Following the Money.” Jerry and I discussed this subject of costs in some depth, and I have to say that I was amazed at how many different philosophies there are competing with one another. I admit that I was taken by a few of them, whereas others seem to make no sense at all. Here’s a quick summary of two of the latter category:
The result of the damage that is currently being done to our planet via the consumption of fossil fuels is very small right now, though we know that it will be extremely painful in 100 years. Therefore, we should do very little about it now, but be prepared to address it aggressively 100 from now. (Say what? Here’s what I told Jerry when I heard that: Even if you accept the premise, which I don’t, if we know the damage we are doing now is going to have enormous repercussions in 100 years, shouldn’t we be doing something aggressive about it now? It strikes me that the person who proposed that solution doesn’t understand that preventing a problem of global proportion is far easier than fixing it once it’s wreaking vast devastation. Either that, or he simply doesn’t care. It’s the equivalent of an oncologist encouraging someone with stage one skin cancer to continue to sun-bathe, on the basis that the condition isn’t terminal at this point.
Here’s another that starts with the same premise: The damage that is currently being done to our planet via the consumption of fossil fuels is very small right now, though we know that it will be felt in the extreme in 100 years. But so much can change in the next 100 years that dealing with this subject now requires guesswork. (Yes, it requires guesswork, but that hardly justifies doing nothing. Again, and no offense intended, it sounds rather like the guy who propounded this concept really is looking for any idea, regardless of how far-fetched, to rationalize a “business-as-usual” approach to energy.)
On we go. Do we as a species have what it takes to apply our “big brains” to this problem, and kill it before it kills us? Or will specious arguments like these keep us all fat, dumb and happy until it’s too late? We’ll see.
Winston Churchill observed wryly, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
I just hope we’re still able to do the right thing after trying everything else. We need to make the shift to renewables (within which several technologies are already identified and proven) while we still have the ability, and before the tipping point is reached – and there IS a tipping point.
Peer reviewed science is decidedly cautious when it comes to making estimates of future risk potential. As an unintended result of that severe caution, we’re already years ahead in terms of the climate disruption that was once expected only in the future. New models are now showing accelerated processes that far exceed prior estimates. We’re already teetering on the brink, with methane pouring out from the (former) permafrost, and feedback loops are already building.
We must now move quickly toward a renewable portfolio, and far more efficient technology and infrastructure for everything from electricity to transportation to agriculture – as many of the rest of the developed (and developing) nations are already doing. This isn’t just about our children and our grandchildren (they’re already doomed to a fierce and desperate struggle unless we change fast); this is now also about our parents’ children – we who sit here today.
You can follow the blinkered denial of sand-breathers, or you can heed the rising warnings from the overwhelming majority of the world’s best scientific minds. Should you prefer the buried head strategy, you’d best have a well-stocked bunker and a painless way out for your progeny.
I’m reminded of an anecdote I once heard about a gathering of wealthy men, some little time after the 1929 crash, who were seated at a long table enjoying fine champagne. The man at the head of the table proposed a bittersweet toast about the road behind them and path that loomed ahead for their own private interests, and for the nations of the world, “Well, gentlemen, we’ve had the best of it.”
Will we choose something of that nature for our society’s epitaph…? …Something in the vein of, “We had a good run,” or a similar hue of hopeless resignation? No. We are, we must be, better than mindless bacteria in a petri dish gulping down the last of the putrid agar and cannibalizing each other in a spiral of mass extinction.
I don’t propose that life on the planet, even including human life, will die out completely; nature is very resilient. Yet the ruinous fate we here today will soon suffer – and the cruel torment to which we are consigning all of our beloved offspring – becomes more crystalline by the month. Certainly, continuing along our present course, we will soon encounter the jagged topography of a rapidly dwindling national and global carrying capacity, as our already depleted planet is shoved into prehistoric weather extremes far exceeding anything ever experienced by our species.
The stakes are higher than they’ve ever been. On top of our massive consumption of our biosphere, from soils to fish, the plain fact is that our whole energy intensive way of life has been built on a foundation of fossil cards that are rapidly playing out. The kings, queens and jacks of cheap fuel are already nearly dealt away, and our newly hair-trigger climate means we can’t afford to simply squander the years, using up the remaining high cards of reasonably accessible fossil sunlight to play the same old game. Renewables are our ace in the hole, and we can’t let them keep sliding to the bottom of the deck, unless we all just want to cash in our chips.
Another quote from Winston Churchill, “Energy Security Is National Security”
It is interesting to recognise the many different ways the idea of “free lunch” is understood.
I am wondering what you think of this approach:
There is definitely such thing as free lunch, otherwise there wouldn’t be any capitalism.
Capitalism is a system that was established upon grabbing free lunch and is maintained by those who grab $ billions for free, while making many millions pay a high price for what NATURALLY belongs to ALL of us.
How so? Read whole article at:
“If there is no free lunch, then there is NO capitalism”
http://familyhurts.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/if-there-is-no-free-lunch-then-there-is-no-capitalism/
Excellent point, rarely recognized.
Thank you so much. : ) If only this point would gain more space in our thinking.