Context is everything. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Yet many of the issues relating to energy options are discussed as absolutes, devoid of context. Many options are sold as virtues, un-netted by their offsetting potential liabilities. This suggests either genuine ignorance by supposedly enlightened people, or self-serving disingenousness. Either way. It leads to bad policy, and worse consequences.
A few examples to illustrate:
I'm not opposed to new nuclear energy plants with the latest safety technology and a more enlightened sensitivity to siting for minor inconveniences like earthquakes, tsunamis and sea level rise.
Just resolve one remaining minor detail before we pour the cement. What are we going to do with the waste? Long-term!
We cannot talk about the economics of nuclear energy or its safety until we include the cost of safe and reliable waste management over its relevant range of risk (like forever).
We also must recognize that nuclear energy, like coal, petroleum and natural gas, is a depletable resource; a non-renewable resource. The question is, if the world embraces it as a medium term energy salvation, is there enough to go around? Can it be safely deployed to need and in time? And what follows it as resources are depleted.
Natural Gas, the New 'Oil'.
The US could become the new Saudi Arabia of gas, natural and other, along with Canada. Whew! And I was almost worried that we were running out of energy.The beauty of it: a win-win for energy and the environment; less carbon intensive than coal or oil. A no-brainer!
But how much of that is dependent on 'enhanced technologies' like fracking? What are the risks? What are the associated costs? Who's making the decisions on trade-offs? Are we going to be chasing reality after the fact, as in the deep water drilling in the Gulf, or are we going to take anticipatory positions to head off probable disasters? There are alternatives to fracked gas, at a cost. What are the alternatives to potable water? And at what cost? As we become the natural gas Saudi Arabia of the world, will we
- exploit this conservatively for the longest term energy independence of the country; or
- follow Russia's example of using energy imperialism in place of military imperialism; or
- just sell as much as fast as possible to whomever, and let the future take care of itself (see the Oil economy for a model).
Deep Water Oil -
There's a reason why we take the risks of drilling for expensive oil in deep water and other hostile places: we can't get enough any longer in easier places. And, needless to say, we will continue to pursue these options in the near to intermediate terms because the political imperatives are more tangible than the economic and environmental risks, even with the Gulf as a recent (and current- see late breaking news) example.
I can accept that reality. Just tell me how you plan to prevent a repeat, and how the industry plans to address a repeat if human error or natural calamity again trumps best intentions. Also, tell me how the best industry plans on paper have been translated into tangible, deploy-able resources and technologies only one year after the Gulf event. Will they be in place when the recently approved drill project is ready to sink a pipe?
Clean Coal?
Yes, I know. It sounds like an oxymoron. It would be nice if it were reality. There's so much of it, and not only in the US. In fact, it's kind of like candy. There's more of it than is good for you. And it's cheap, if you ignore the costs of its pollution on human health and in terms of other environmental damage, which is ultimately monetized in human health. Think of coal pollution, or any other energy pollution as an un-legislated tax imposed by business on society. (Do I hear a tea-partier cry of 'No taxation without representation'?)
So, the questions are:
- Who defines the criteria for 'clean coal'?
- How close are we to achieving 'clean coal'?
- How do we manage the current industry to that horizon in a responsible manner?
- If 'clean coal' is a mirage or a pipe dream (pun intended), how do we transition the current industry and its many employee stake-holders to an alternative future (energy or otherwise) that does not do damage to them in the course of minimizing damage to society, and minimizing ongoing trench warfare to delay the inevitable?
Renewables
Yes, it's the future. but how distant to scale?
We've read all the hypothetical projections that there's enough solar and enough wind to replace all the fossil fuels forever. As long as we do not put any of it on all the precious wilderness that is most bountiful in these sources. And don't scar our view-shed with those horrid off-shore wind farms or transmission lines. And don't let the added cost of those long transmission lines serve as an excuse for rate increases to those profit hungry utilities and private sector power providers, because cheap energy is key to the capitalist economic success. (That last one is a capitalist mantra that is as much an expression of entitlement as the environmentalists' insistence on the pure and pristine.)
The question is: when and how do the environmentalists plan to resolve their internally contradictory priorities to a sensible platform grounded in reality?
* * *
These questions are not original or new. They come up repeatedly, often in isolation in discussing one alternative or another. But, because these are alternatives, the related questions must be addressed as a group, and not as energy option one-offs. When we endeavor to answer all these questions, we will be able to make sensible trade-offs, economic, environmental, social; and we will then be able to define prudent regulation that can set the context in which the private sector can do its magic with some degree of certainty in an otherwise highly uncertain world.
Onward.
Comments