No Alternative

In the most recent election, three Colorado communities elected for moratoriums against hydraulic fracturing within their city limits.  On one hand, it seems fair to limit gas exploration in the immediate vicinity of thousands of residents.  In another regard, energy that is found nearest the consumer is the most efficient and least invasive.  If you've seen my post of October 5^th, and also in August of 2011, you would know that I disagree with limitations in natural gas exploration.  Natural gas is relatively clean burning, abundant, and renewable.  So, in light of this recent vote, I want everyone to ponder a few big questions:

   

Imagine a world in the future where we all suddenly agree that global warming is a real and present danger - a world where we all decide to rise up and make a sweeping change.   A world where we all decide to stop carbon emissions worldwide, and actively engage in carbon prevention and sequestration.  We need to ask ourselves a very practical question:  Without burning carbon fuels, where will we get all of our energy? 

Would we greatly increase the use of wind power?  Not likely.  Wind power endangers rare birds as they are struck down by the fast moving turbines.  It impairs our views of open space and casts artificial shade on otherwise sunny spaces.  Wind energy takes a great deal of energy to build, transport, and maintain.  The generators require large quantities of rare earth metals.  Engineers have not yet solved the problems of lateral stress on the generators, which causes them to break down often.  Most importantly, we cannot store the inconsistent energy as it is produced.

Would we support the use of solar power?  Not likely.  It involves the use of highly toxic heavy metals and extreme amounts of energy to produce.  Solar energy is expensive to develop, not very efficient, and encapsulates years of electrical energy to manufacture.  Due to its experimental nature, solar energy has suffered some of the largest failures in recent years, despite massive Federal funding.  Solyndra and Abound together cost us around 400 Million in Federal losses.  

Would we support the use of hydro energy?  Not likely.  It requires tremendous amounts of resources and emissions to construct a dam.  Reservoirs flood highly valuable riverside habitat, interrupts the migration of fish and wildlife, heats surface water, increases evaporation, and disrupts river flows.  Most importantly, it steals water resources from other communities and entire states down stream.    

Electric cars have invisible exhaust.

Electric cars?  Not an answer at all.  Proponents of electric cars ignore the source of the electricity, which comes from coal burning and natural gas burning power plants.  Unless a new carbon free energy source is created, electric cars are simply a carbon emitter in disguise.

How about nuclear power?  No way.  It is extremely expensive to build, dangerous to operate, impossible to clean up, and potentially catastrophic to human life.

Ok, should we promote bio-fuels?  Not a good idea.  They increase our water needs and fertilizer use.  They may increase food costs, and are still burned, resulting in carbon emissions.  Bio fuels are also less efficient in terms of fuel mileage.  Increased cultivation increases dust pollution, air pollution, and water contamination. 

Then how about hydrogen fuel?  With a little research, we discover that the most efficient way to generate hydrogen is with the use of fossil fuels, methane, and high volumes of electrical energy.  Not much to gain there.  Hydrogen is little more than converted and stored carbon energy.

In fairness, I made a cynical attempt to view every energy source in it's most negative light, and I don't agree with every sentiment above.  I am repeating information relayed mostly by liberal sources.  The same liberals who disagree with "fracking" also disagree with alternatives for the above reasons.  This illustrates the fact that there is no perfect solution to our energy future.  As we transition away from carbon energy, the best we can do is choose the lesser of the evils.  I argue that natural gas is the lesser of evils.  It is shutting down the coal market, and that is a step in the right direction.

If we continue to make local fuel exploration difficult and expensive, we are ultimately forcing another flawed alternative.  The best answer to alternative power is every answer.  Hydrogen fuel is carbon free when it is generated and stored from wind energy.  Electric vehicles are carbon free when they are charged with solar energy.  Solar panels are carbon free if they are built from hydro energy.  Hydro dams are carbon free if they are built with hydrogen powered equipment.  Carbon free is a process, not just a plug in car.  The alternative energy future must be a network, all flaws accepted.  Until we realize that, we really have no alternative.

Tony F.
2013

One Thing Liberals and Conservatives Agree On (For Different Reasons)

What do Annie Leonard (liberal) and Dave Ramsey (conservative) have in common?  Let’s take a look:

Annie Leonard, the author of “The Story of Stuff” and web based film maker, talks endlessly about how much stuff we manufacture, buy, use, throw away, and buy again.  The Story of Stuff is a tragedy, telling of our dependency and obsession with stuff.  Stuff that continues to feed a gigantic cycle of consumption, deplete resources, fill trash dumps, burn fuel, and contribute to global warming.  She increases awareness of our carbon footprint, and how it grows with each thing we buy and throw away.  Stuff is the problem.  Buy less stuff.  To her followers, Annie sends a sensible message to a country that is overtly focused on material goods, and not focused enough on the health of the planet.  To her conservative critics, however, she is an anti-establishment leftist liberal. 

Dave Ramsey, the author of “The Total Money Makeover” and financial radio talk show host, advises his followers on how to achieve Financial Peace.  He teaches that we Americans tend to act far too often out of want instead of need.  We see things and we buy them, often with a credit card, or with the last few dollars we could have had in the bank.  Dave helps folks work their way from debt to prosperity by being prudent about the things they buy.  He re-frames our attitude toward the things we think we need, and helps us identify what we really need.  He teaches the value of money, the wisdom of savings, and the blessings of frugality.  Things are the problem.  Don’t buy unnecessary things.  Save your money, invest it, and make it work for you.  Dave is a common sense, tough-love, conservative.   To his followers, his advice is as good as gold.  To his liberal critics, however, he is a Bible thumping money miser. 

Clearly, liberals and conservatives share a similar view toward wasteful, costly, extravagant, unnecessary stuff and things - for very different reasons.  With the development of cable television, the internet, Facebook, and Twitter, we obtain this information faster now than ever before in history, and regardless of our political view, we are getting the same message.  It is this new awareness of how we buy things and waste stuff that may be shaping our current economy.  After the economic bubble burst in 2009, average credit card debt declined by nearly 20%, mostly due to default.  Four years later, credit card debt continues to stay flat or even decline slightly, despite slow growth in the Gross Domestic Product.  Overall employment per capita was at its highest during the 10 years prior to the recession, and now employment also continues to lay flat.  As I suggested in my post “The Great Exuberance” August 2011, it is becoming more apparent that the robust economy in the decade prior to 2009 was the result of excessive consumption – a level of consumption that may no longer be prudent for any of us.

Dollar average is based on homes with credit card debt, which is also in decline.

In fairness, it is important to identify the subtle differences between the liberal and conservative views on consumption.  Annie takes a world view, or at least a nationwide view, implying that nobody should have excessive stuff, not even the wealthy or the resourceful.  Consequently, her message implies that anyone with lots of stuff should be ashamed of it.  Of course, taking stuff from the wealthy is not the center of Annie’s message.  Her goal is more a matter of individual awareness.  Dave, on the other hand, talks about things solely as they compare to the size of your wallet.  No matter how much you make, you must spend less than your income.  So, if you have lots of things and you bought them on credit, you should be ashamed of that.  If you have lots of things and you've paid all of your bills, made charitable donations, and still have money left over, there’s nothing to be ashamed of.  For the average American, however, the size of our wallet isn't much of a variable.   It also doesn't matter if we are liberal or conservative, or if we like Annie’s message or Dave’s message.  Having less stuff and things is apparently a win-win for everyone - but not so great on the overall economy.

Tony F.

2013