Apartment Building in Germany Produces Energy from Algae
Here’s a story about an apartment building in Germany that produces more energy than it consumes – at least partially from algae. Neat story, but the issue here, as always, isn’t, “Is it possible?” but, “Is it anywhere near cost-effective?” As 2GreenEnergy Associate Dr. Peter Lilienthal is fond of saying, “Craig: If you don’t care how much you pay for it, I’ll bring you all the clean energy you could ever want.”
This is the singular theme of my thinking on the subject, which I would condense to “energy pragmatism.” I.e., I’m an advocate of renewable energy because – and only because – given the true costs of energy from nuclear and fossil fuels, it’s the deal of the century.
Of course, I shouldn’t be such an impassive kill-joy. It’s cool that this building is a living laboratory, a testimony to Germany’s fantastic level of interest in all things green.
I think it is important to balance pragmatism with a readiness to invest in R & D without necessarily knowing which technologies will one day become cost effective.
Most if not all new energy technologies if not all technologies across the board struggle to compete with more mature technologies when first introduced.
It is for this reason that many governments in some way or another facilitate investment in research and development, and where there is a social or environmental driver contribute towards the extra costs of early deployment.
Without governments underwriting some of the early risk, many of the technologies we now use would not now be available – satellite television, nuclear power, many medical technologies, wind turbines, and solar panels for a start.
I am not saying that the building in question will ever produce energy from Algae in a cost effective manner, but if Germany had not taken a lead in solar power, we would not now be at or near grid parity in so many parts of the world.
Totally true; excellent point.
And, as I noted, the building is a symbol/reminder to everyone who sees it.
“…if Germany had not taken a lead in solar power, we would not now be at or near grid parity in so many parts of the world.”
Gary, thank you for pointing this up!
One factor often receiving too little attention in the economic discussions about energy is the complete lack of holistic accouting on all sides of the equation, but most potently and particularly in the fossil energy arena.
It’s been pointed out on this site and elsewhere that the externalized costs of fossil fuel (and current nuclear technology) would make them wholly unattractive options in comparison with renewables.
With the recent World Bank report, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided,” and the Reuters reports on the follow-on drive by a “coalition of the world’s largest investors called on governments to ramp up action on climate change and boost clean-energy investment, or risk trillions of dollars in investments and disruption to economies,” there is growing recognition of externalized fossil energy costs.
These investors, who together manage $22.5 trillion in assets, said, “The investments and retirement savings of millions of people are being jeopardized because governments were delaying tougher emissions cuts or more generous support for greener energy.”
These are major bankers, looking at their own bottom lines, and crying out against the climate disruption resulting from our addiction to fossils. The rest of the Western business world – and Western governments they influence – may not be far behind.
Let’s hope.