WHY ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOLUTIONS AREN'T ENOUGH

The current policy debate these days relating to energy policy seems to be focused on the search for alternative fuels.

In reality, the global warming crisis and energy problem isn't truly a supply issue.

We've gotten to this point because of escalating demand around the globe. Not just China or India (though both play a big part). But in all the developed world.

Simply put, we use more electricity and we drive more than we used to a generation before. 

There are more big screen TVs, home theater systems, computers and other electronic devices in our homes now.

The communications infrastructure in most businesses -- from servers, workstations and all the telco equipment -- has ballooned as the cluster of wires snaking through office complexes take up more and more space (but still hidden from our view in the T-bar ceilings).

We spend more time in our cars and traveling greater distances commuting to and from work.

We fly out of ever busier airports than we used to. Congestion in the skies as well as on the roads.

Our economies continue to produce more and more "stuff" (or "output" if you want to stick to jargon) each year - toys, disposable cameras, packaged foods, office supplies, and so forth. We've never had more selection in our stores or more retail options than we do now.

The energy required to produce all of this has to come from somewhere.

And this doesn't even count the Chinese and Indians who have only caught wind that "hey, I want air conditioning, cars, big screen TVs, and the ability to make stuff just like you guys do."

Demand has simply grown a lot faster than our ability to find supply. And this has become especially a problem in the last few years.

Even if we do rebalance our sources for energy, we will still have a problem if we don't find a way to be more judicious about our energy consumption.

It's as much about changing our behavior as it is about finding alternative supply.

Consider the following:

(1) Right now, roughly 60% of our global energy consumption comes from oil and gas. This is not only used to drive our vehicles, but also to generate so much of our electricity; so even if we all switch to 'electric cars', that electricity still needs to come from somewhere - as long as much of our electricity is generated from oil and gas, we really don't solve the problem of depleting oil reserves as well as stemming climate change.

(2) Coal is the 2nd largest source of energy worldwide at 25%. It's extremely plentiful too. However, even with "clean coal" that won't produce the black plumes of Victorian England, there is a problem of CO2 emissions. So even if we substitute away from oil for more coal, we still face the impact of climate change.

(3) So 85% of our global energy consumption comes from oil, gas and coal. The remaining 15% comes from nuclear, hydro, biofuels, wind and solar -- some of which are more practical than others as primary energy sources.

(4) Nuclear power has the potential to be a great source for energy. The biggest hurdle isn't a technical one, but a political one. First, in democratic countries, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome is a huge political hurdle. Every one wants the cheap and plentiful energy, but no one wants the facilities or the disposal in their neighborhood. Even if scientists could explain how spent fuel rods could be safely disposed, few if any home owners will want it. And for good reason - even if residents believed it to be safe, by building a nuclear facility and disposal site in your neighborhood, the property prices in that neighborhood immediately adjust - downwards. The government has basically taken out a big chunk of equity in your house to pay for electricity generation that benefits citizens beyond your little neighborhood. It would be political suicide for elected officials to advocate this. So what you're left with is finding virgin territory or land. Problem is, there isn't much of that left.

(5) Biofuels seem to be the wave of the future, but hold on. It's renewable and not as harmful as fossil fuels are for the environment. Plus, it shifts the balance of power geopolitically away from the oil rich Middle East and towards the wheat fields of the North American midwest. However, there is one big problem which we've already gotten a taste of -- higher food prices. Unless we colonize Mars, there is a finite supply of land on this Earth, with so much of the arable land already in cultivation.  By producing more corn or wheat (or whatever) for biofuels, you're producing less for food. Less supply even with constant demand (assuming populations stay constant) still means higher food prices. If there is one thing that will cause more political upheaval and panic than high energy prices, it's high food prices. The poorest of the poor don't drive much or use much electricity, but we all need to eat. And nothing spells doom for any government (democratic or authoritarian) than a mob of really hungry pissed off people. Most of us in the developed world can afford higher food prices if push comes to shove. But most people in the developing world cannot. So more biofuel means more starvation. Or we end up bankrupting the developing countries' governments who cannot afford a growing and permanent food subsidy for its citizens (and even if developed countries were to provide aid, that money has to come from somewhere - either in the form of taxes or higher biofuel prices).

(6) Hydro power is certainly a very promising alternate source that is already in use today - although it makes up such a small percentage of total consumption. We can certainly use a LOT more hydro plants in the world. The big problem though is the construction time and costs. Building more Hoover Dams is a gargantuan task with the actual construction time taking five years or more per dam. Not to mention the pre-planning process such as selecting the appropriate site, the environmental impact of the dam (i.e. concerns with China's Three Gorges Dam) as well as the political process of convincing voters in a local municipality that it's a good idea to build a dam that will benefit the rest of the state or country. Moreover, while the ongoing costs of maintaining a completed dam are relatively modest, the initial fixed cost of building one is huge. Who pays for it? Taxpayers? Private corporations? The money has to come from somewhere - and like nuclear power, everyone wants the benefit of cheap and plentiful energy that lasts generations, but few want to be the generation that foots the bill for it. 

(7) Solar and wind power are still relatively new, and at this point its efficiency still needs a lot of improvement before it can be used as a significant source of energy. The other issue is that both depend a lot on the elements. If it's cloudy, you don't get much. If it's not windy enough, you don't get much. Perhaps science will find a way to make these sources more efficient (and therefore more economically viable), but it will take years if not a decade or more before scientific discovery is converted into mainstream practical use. The same goes with other promising sources like wave power (capturing energy from the ocean waves) -- promising, but still not an immediate or even short-term solution.

My point in all this is that every single energy source has tradeoffs. There simply is no magic bullet.

Even if we are to shift towards alternative sources (and I think in spite of all the tradeoffs and hurdles I mentioned above, it will happen to some degree), we still have a demand problem.

We simply need to find practical ways of driving less and walking more. Using less lights. Making any electrical device more energy efficient. 

And finally, becoming less of a consumer-oriented world. We are simply manufacturing too much disposable stuff that we end up throwing away and replacing with more disposable stuff.