Movement on Renewable Energy

The current campaign gives hope that the will exists to move forward on energy toward renewable sources. Even the right-wing "energy independence" movement can be a positive force if handled properly. Obama and McCain have agreed on cap-and-trade and other measures to shift gears. Some kind of non-partisan consensus and concerted action in 2009 is imaginable, no matter which candidate wins.

Al Gore's call to bring 100% of electricity to renewable sources in 10 years (see, for example, http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/) is a huge stretch, but points toward a nexus, a visible point on the horizon. So does Boone Pickens, who's for Big Wind to replace Big Erl. There's a focus to Gore's challenge that is practicable, even if the goal isn't. "How?" is now the question of the hour.

If the movement works out, wind and solar will soon be able to command huge investment and political will, which no self-respecting high plains district will long be able to ignore. (Taos County Commissioners, please note: the only question is alignment so as to cause minimum disruption to bird migratory patterns.)

Now, a Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html?th&emc=th) argues for large-scale solar power generation through new-generation panels deployed from space stations. The power would then "be safely beamed back to earth by microwave radio." Author O.Glenn Smith, a former NASA scientist, claims this is all possible with existing technology. I think the issues will be durability and reliability--space is a harsh mistress, as Heinlein said, and the solar wind may corrode the new, delicate cells. Further, the slightest malfunction with the microwave beam would probably cook thousands of hapless victims. But, if you're a connoisseur of solar, this is drinking straight from the source.

Another component of this emergent consensus was expressed recently by Andy Grove, former head of Intel (reference). He convincingly argues that we must focus on the electrical system as the most resilient way (also most efficient) to utilize energy. If we bring more of the energy consumption into our electrical power system we would be able to absorb fuel supplies of many types and waste less--produce less greenhouse gases--in doing so.

What means all this? Coal, which has not walked the walk in terms of developing clean methods of use, should be pushed roughly out of the picture (gasification being probably the only sane channel for future development). Vehicles powered principally by rechargeable electrical systems would be logical to roll out in this future scenario (I'd say light rail, along with plug-in hybrids and even the return of the pure electric car.) Nuclear will be marginal but still part of the program in this consensus approach. Biomass generally should supplant ethanol and other processes using food plants. Fossil fuels would wither and die....

OK, got carried away. And, for all its merits under the current US energy economic environment, I don't see how this emergent policy saves the globe from the wave of Chinese dirty consumption which is building. We still need to do the research into clean coal, too. And plan for the refugees from Bangladesh and other populous areas nearly certain to suffer massive future flooding, in case we all fall short.