The myth of clean energy

 

The mantra of the Greens is that we, the United States, and the other industrial powers are destroying the earth with our excessive use of fossil fuels.

As early as 2003, Alan Caruba wrote (CNSNews.com Commentary): “We need to understand that we cannot ‘conserve’ our way to energy use.

 

“Untapped energy resources are wasted energy … there are ways to reduce energy consumption, but the issue is not consumption so much as it being able to have energy when you need it. Energy literally fuels the engine of the American economy — and your home or apartment, your workplace, your car, etc.”

So, if conservation is not the answer, what other alternatives are there – and are they clean?

The focus of environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club, is on renewable energy sources: biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydro power, solar power, tidal power, wave and wind power. These include energy that is derived from photovoltaic power plants, and ethanol for transportation.

 

“About 13 percent of the world’s primary energy comes from renewable sources, with most of the renewable energy coming from traditional biomass, like wood-burning.

Hydropower is the next largest renewable source, providing two to three percent and modern technologies, like geothermal, wind, solar, and marine power together produce less than one percent of total world energy demand.” (Wikipedia, “Renewable Energy”)

Unfortunately, these sources of energy, as promising as they may be, do not yet come close to meeting the world’s needs with clean energy.

Biomass fuels must be grown, collected, dried, fermented and burned, all of which must have resources and an infrastructure.

 

Ethanol has been reported to take more energy to produce than the final product provides. Another biofuel is wood.

However, burning wood produces serious pollution. In Denver, for example, the use of wood burning stoves is highly regulated: “… a ‘red’ advisory makes it a crime, and ‘violators who burn without approved low-emitting stoves or inserts can be fined as much as $15,000 a day.’” (The Denver Post, “Winter air-quality alert puts damper on wood burning today,” by Steve Lipsher)

 

Hydroelectric power requires large dams, such as the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State.

The possibility of undertaking such projects in America is now extremely doubtful. Environmental laws and activism would block them or cause delays that would drive up costs to the point that they would not be feasible.

Writing in the Washington Times, Robert J. Samuelson noted, “… in effect, natural gas powers the Internet and most PCs. It is also a major fuel for manufacturers and for heating office buildings.

“In 2002 about half of gas sales went to industrial and commercial users. The trouble is that we’re no longer self-sufficient in natural gas — and our import dependence will grow. … The hallmark of U.S. energy policy is a steadfast refusal to confront choices.”

 

One thing is for certain: energy is not free, no matter what the source. It’s also necessary to consider the cost of developing and delivering the energy we need, along with the potential of harmful byproducts or waste.

In the final analysis, clean or not, we need energy sources that can power our industrial society with the least amount of harm to the environment at the lowest possible cost.

 

Whatever route we go, it will not be free and it will not be clean in the sense that it produces zero waste or zero damage to the environment.