alternative energy — VOICES for REASON

Whenever you hear about the miracles of wind power, always keep in mind one thing above all: because the wind blows erratically, and sometimes doesn’t blow at all, wind power is inherently unreliable. As I wrote in a recent piece on “green energy,”

where coal, oil, and natural gas can be burned whenever power is needed, at the exact quantity needed, wind and sunlight can be harnessed only when the weather cooperates–and electricity can’t be stored [in significant quantities] for a rainy day. Thus, they are always used as supplemental, not primary, sources of power on electric grids.

An engineer friend of mine recently witnessed this fact firsthand while driving east of San Francisco. He sent me this still picture that is as good as a movie–because the windmills were not moving. As he wrote: “Good thing Californians have reliable coal and gas-fired power on the grid elsewhere; Gaia did not see fit to bless us with breeze-based power today. Hundreds of them, dead still.”

Anytime you see an electric car you are likely to see a “zero emissions” sticker on it, implying that the driver of the car is driving without emitting CO2. Electric car companies are using this idea to market their cars, and to imply that those of us who drive gasoline-powered cars should feel guilty. For example, Coda Automotive, an electric car company, brags that its not-yet-existent sedan, once it exists, will be “An all-electric car to let you drive your way out from under the thumb of big oil. To help steer us away from climate change, polluted skies…”

It is true that electric motors do not emit CO2, and electric cars don’t have tailpipes that emit CO2 or anything else. But ask yourself (or Coda): Where does the electricity that charges the “zero emissions” car come from? Answer: It almost certainly comes from burning coal or natural gas, by far the leading sources of electricity production in America, because they produce the cheapest, most abundant power. Another question: What happens when you burn coal or natural gas to produce electricity? CO2 is emitted.

To call a car “zero emissions” because it generates CO2 at the power plant instead of the engine is intellectually indefensible–and dishonest. And it is a particularly dangerous form of dishonesty, because it promotes the idea that oil and other fossil fuels are dispensable to our standard of living. They are not.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

One argument sometimes heard in favor of green energy is that sources such as wind and solar are “free, forever.”  Al Gore, in particular, has said repeatedly that to end our “overdependence on outdated, heavily polluting carbon-based technologies . . . we need sources that are free forever, like the sun, wind and earth.” (See also here, here and here.)

On a superficial glance, this might seem to have a certain ring of plausibility. To use the energy in oil, coal and natural gas takes a lot of work and resources: the fuels have to be discovered, extracted, transported, processed, refined, and distributed—all at great effort and expense.

By contrast, sunlight and wind are flows of energy that already occur all by themselves in nature. Sunshine is, literally, a stream of electromagnetic energy flowing onto the earth. Similarly with wind, which consists of air particles that carry kinetic energy by the very fact of their being in motion. We can feel the effects of such energy without effort, just by sitting in the sun and enjoying the breeze.

But if you give this even a tiny amount of additional thought, you should quickly realize that the “free forever” argument is just plain silly.

Read the rest of this entry »

Most people have become acclimated to an extremely slow rate of energy progress. While, say, our computers and electronics will rapidly decrease in price while increasing in quality, our energy bills look to be going nowhere but up. This despite the fact that today, as in the past several decades, government “energy planners” promise us an energy paradise of solar, wind, or whatever other technology they happen to favor.

My new essay, “Energy at the Speed of Thought,” tells the story of an entirely different sort of energy market.

[H]istory provides us ample grounds for optimism about the potential for a dynamic energy market with life-changing breakthroughs — because America once had exactly such a market. For most of the 1800s, an energy market existed unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes, a market devoid of government meddling. With every passing decade, consumers could buy cheaper, safer, and more convenient energy, thanks to continual breakthroughs in technology and efficiency — topped off by the discovery and mass availability of an alternative source of energy that, through its incredible cheapness and abundance, literally lengthened and improved the lives of nearly everyone in America and millions more around the world. That alternative energy was called petroleum. By studying the rise of oil, and the market in which it rose, we will see what a dynamic energy market looks like and what makes it possible. Many claim to want the “next oil”; to that end, what could be more important than understanding the conditions that gave rise to the first oil? 

In the essay, I argue that the amazing speed and impact of “the original alternative energy industry” is achievable today. What will it take? Go read “Energy at the Speed of Thought” to find out.

Next Monday I will be speaking about the destructiveness of policies aimed at cutting off fossil fuels and promoting “green energy.” I will be on a panel discussion at UCLA with Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Here is the description:

 It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent climate change. But what does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Are governmental economic intervention and restrictions on emissions an appropriate policy response? Drs. Keith Lockitch and Willie Soon will address these critical issues in a lively panel discussion and afterward take your questions.

I’ve had the pleasure of appearing on several panels with Dr. Soon over the last year. He has excellent knowledge of the science at the center of the climate change debate. If you’re in Southern California, come check it out!

Whenever I make the point–in speaking and writing on climate policy–that green restrictions on carbon emissions would require a massive and economically devastating reduction in our use of energy, I am always confronted by the objection that I am ignoring “alternative energy.”

Environmentalists aren’t against energy, I am told, just fossil fuel energy; their goal is not to deprive us of energy but to replace carbon-based energy with “green energy,” to meet the world’s energy needs using “environmentally-friendly” sources such as wind and solar.

Yeah, right.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ordinarily, when a company has a long record of profits and a continually increasing stock price, it is recognized for its vision. But look at ExxonMobil. It just capped off the most profitable year in American business history, a year in which it hit its all-time-high stock price. And yet the company continues to be lambasted by critics as a “dinosaur.” Its product, oil, critics say, is on its way to obsolescence. These critics claim that oil is a fast-depleting, CO2-emitting, soon-to-be relic of the past. They say that Exxon and other oil companies should be investing in “alternative fuels,” the wave of the future, just like all those “visionaries” we hear about in Al Gore speeches or read about in Thomas L. Friedman columns. One particularly biting criticism of Big Oil has been waged by the Rockefeller family, which has banded together to claim that John D. Rockefeller, founder of the modern industry, would enjoin today’s oil companies to phase out this antiquated product. “ExxonMobil needs to reconnect with the forward-looking and entrepreneurial vision of my great-grandfather,” says family activist Neva Rockefeller Goodwin.

I’ve studied Rockefeller intensely over the last two years, and I can say for sure his descendants are right about one thing: he definitely was a visionary. When others in the oil industry were making kerosene using shanty refineries, Rockefeller envisioned and made real a large-scale, research-and-development, modern corporation that made kerosene more cheaply than anyone thought possible. So we should definitely look to Rockefeller to understand what real vision is. But are alternative fuels companies the visionaries we hear they are? Or is it possible that the oil companies are the real visionaries? Stay tuned.