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