Can We Get To 100% Renewables?

This sounds like an important question, doesn’t it?  After all, we know that the consumption of fossil fuels is causing a huge amount of damage to our environment and our physical health.  No one with any sense denies that we need a low-carbon electric grid.  What’s more, the distinguished Mark Z. Jacobson from Stanford is among several who have published peer-reviewed papers explaining exactly how this can be accomplished. So again, why not go all the way?

Well, here are some things to think about when it comes to a wholesale replacement of our energy resources.

• The proposal is ill-defined in terms of cost.  In the words of 2GreenEnergy Associate Dr. Peter Lilienthal, “If you don’t care what you pay for it, I’ll find you all the clean energy you could ever think about using.”

• It’s ill-defined in terms of time frame.  The longer we have to achieve that, the better and cheaper all the relevant technologies will become.  Also, the longer we wait, the more urgent it will become, meaning that we’ll (conceivably) be willing to pay a higher price.

• It’s ill-defined in terms of technology.  Does nuclear count?

• Most importantly, it’s unrequired to get us where we need to go.  Using even significant amounts of natural gas to follow loads will cause a minimum of harm.

• On top of everything else, the negative impact of energy is actually smaller than the impact made by beef farming. It’s probably more important to decrease the amount of red meat we consume, or come up with lower-impact methods for raising cattle.

At the end of the day, this sounds more like a moot point than a reason to get excited; the whole discussion is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.