I have been noticing an uptick in the number of articles comparing the relative cost and environmental impacts of “sustainable” energy and hydrocarbon energy that attempt to “prove” that hydrocarbon fuels are much less expensive and have a tremendously smaller environmental impact than wind or solar power. Some of these point to the fact that these technologies require mining for raw materials and end up with lots of waste at the end of their lives – as if none of that applies to gas, oil or coal. I think this is a pretty brazen attempt to make total poppycock somehow “make sense.” Sure, all sources of power have negative environmental impacts, but to say that hydrocarbons have none while wind and solar are so bad as to be unacceptable is unconscionable.

However, as is so often the case – there is a grain of truth in the warnings that wind and solar aren’t exactly “clean” – they come with their own set of problems. Depending upon how they are integrated into the overall power supply system, these “green” technologies are not only far from “green” but can have negative impacts as to be totally unacceptable. As currently use, large wind turbines fit into this category because they produce no net renewable energy. They require so much backup support from low efficiency hydrocarbon power plants (“peaker plants”) that the overall output is the same as if neither they, and their backup support power plants, were ever built. With regard to energy and production of carbon dioxide, they are a push and do nothing useful for the environment, the use as much hydrocarbons as would be the case without the wind turbines because much higher efficiency power plants can be used. When you add the impacts of making these devices, making the cement to mount them, the number of birds they kill, and what they do to the local environment it is very clear that they should never have been built and should be removed ASAP. Maybe they will eventually produce a positive amount of energy if, or when, sufficient electrical storage capabilities are provided. So far that hasn’t happened, and it is very likely that the current crop of wind turbines will be torn down and replaced before sufficient storage is provided.

This type of tit-for-tat discussion about the relative merits of various sources of power misses the real point, which is that instead of trying to replace the hydrocarbon fuels with “sustainable” sources of energy, we should be reducing our energy footprint so we don’t need so much power. If an argument doesn’t start there, but instead only talks about how to match (or exceed) or current energy demand from a different source of power there is never going to be an acceptable solution.

The interesting thing about reducing energy demands is that it does not include a requirement to reduce the benefits that we get from using energy. It doesn’t mean hotter, or colder, homes. It doesn’t mean going to back to model T cars (which were gas guzzlers 1927 models got an average of 7.6 mpg), but rather forward to cars that are even better, more comfortable, quieter and safer than today’s models (which are pretty darned good when compared to any cars made in the past). It doesn’t mean that production, or construction costs of buildings or machinery costs are higher to pay for the new much higher efficiency, in fact it means much lower costs in almost all cases. For example, we currently have the technology to produce light bulbs that use less than 1 watt to make as much light as an old fashioned 100 w light, but costs the same to manufacture – with the additional bonus that the average life is similar to the new “long life” LED lights that use 10 watts but cost $6 (or more). Everywhere you turn there are similar savings in energy use and initial cost, coupled with better products.

It is hard to be positive about why this situation exists, but I have a suspicion that it has something to do with the fact that the savings associated with energy efficiency go to the user, not to the power producers or distributors. It looks to me like we have enough opportunities to reduce the amount of energy that we need to do what we currently do with less than 25% of what we are using. The thing is that this requires building things with that in mind rather than just continuing to do what we are doing and wondering why it doesn’t change. It means taking the big look to keep the “big system picture” in view while looking at the microscope view of specific technologies at the same time. Instead of subsidizing large scale “renewable energy” we should be assisting efforts to increase efficiency. The goal is to meet our needs, not to make power (unless you are in the business of selling power).

An example of what I am talking about with regard to the big picture is with the new fleet of electric cars that GM promises to deliver by 2035. Electric cars have the potential for many great efficiency savings, with average energy use of the equivalent of 60 mpg or more (probably quite a bit more by they time they have made the transition). This means using about 1/3 of the energy for cars as we do now without changing or driving needs. But …. this means using a lot more electrical energy for transportation, and it also means that the energy has to be stored onboard the car. Not an inconsequential question is related to deciding how do to store the energy? Batteries are quick, easy, available – and a terrible solution because of the vast amounts of rare and difficult to obtain metals required in their production. Perhaps by 2035 some other type of battery will be available that minimizes the mining footprint, but perhaps not. Maybe fuel cells would be a far better solution. They use far less rare materials, are much less expensive to create, are much lighter, and are a proven solution. However, that means making hydrogen for the fuel, and transporting it from wherever it is made to where it is used. Currently, almost all hydrogen is made using hydrocarbons. It is possibly to electricity from solar, or perhaps hydrocarbons produced by bio-reactors using “waste” plant matter from land fills, logging processes, agriculture and others. But that requires building an efficient infrastructure. Maybe the hydrogen can be made locally using solar electricity. All of these problems have solutions, most of the micro-view solutions are known and in place, it is the larger big-system picture of how to create the required infrastructure that stands in the way of this approach. Creating a complete revision of our transportation energy supply seems like a daunting task, but it has been done before and can be done again. The first automobiles got their petrol from drug stores in quart containers – in many countries that is still how it is purchased, but from curb side stalls instead of drug stores. We can provide the infrastructure once we know what is needed, and that takes a decision – not new technology.

Assuming we have the will to reduce our energy footprint to something like 20% of our current use, then the question of how do we provide it becomes very different. In California, the necessary energy if efficiency is embraced can be provided by continuing to use the current hydroelectric dams, the current geothermal power plants, increasing the harvest of plant based hydrocarbons from landfills and other types of plant “waste” at the same time creating vast quantities of highly valuable compost for agricultural use and expanding the use of local “rooftop” solar generation. At that point we won’t need fossil fuels, wind generators, or nuclear power plants – and we will have almost zero green house gas production from our energy sector.