energy continued

Conservation

I am all for conservation; who isn't? In fact, we practice conservation as far as is practical: we use compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances. Since we live in Texas, we took special pains to shop for the most energy efficient air conditioner we could find. We use ceiling and other energy-efficient fans to keep our air conditioning costs down.

When politicians talk about "conservation," they are usually referring to better gas mileage for automobiles. The gas mileage for cars and trucks has improved significantly over the past decades, but no one seems to have noticed. I don't know how much further the mileage can realistically be increased (I am not discussing hybrids here). Congress recently mandated that average mpg increase from 25 to 35 by 2020.

But even if carmakers significantly improve the mileage of vehicles that people want to buy, it will take years for the older vehicles to be replaced by the newer models. And until current vehicles are traded in for the newer, more efficient vehicles (which haven't even been developed yet), the newer vehicles will not make a significant contribution toward energy independence. I am not saying that we should not develop vehicles that are more energy efficient. I'm simply pointing out that this option also has a built-in time lag.


Alternative Energies

Like conservation, every one (including me) is in favor of developing alternative sources of energy, primarily wind and solar. If everyone is in favor of it, why do we have so little of it? The answer is that these alternative sources of energy, as they currently exist, have significant technological limitations ( and therefore economic limitations). More people and communities would utilize these sources if they made economic sense.

Wind power

Wind power is the fastest-growing source of alternative energy in Europe and the United States. Wind turbines have become significantly more efficient, mainly because they have kept getting bigger. Some modern turbines are as tall as 360 feet. Improvements in blade design and gearing have also increased efficiency.

Unfortunately, the best places to locate wind turbines are often remote areas. In order to be useful, the power has to be transported to existing power grids, and transmission lines are expensive to build and maintain. Many wind power projects that are economical based on the cost per megawatt produced become uneconomical when the cost of moving that power where it needs to go is factored in.

Also, some environmentalists have concerns about wind farms killing birds. One has called them "avian Cuisinarts." Wind turbines appear to rotate slowly, but the tips of the blades can reach speeds of 150 mph. One study conducted in California from 1994 to 1997 determined that 37% of 61 tagged Golden Eagles were killed by turbine strikes. Another study estimates that each wind turbine kills two birds per year. Wind farms can also deprive birds of habitat. It takes 2000 wind turbines to generate the same amount of electrical power as the typical coal-fired power plant. No one knows how serious these problems will become as wind farms proliferate, but some environmentalists are understandably concerned.

Solar power

Solar panels have also become significantly more cost-efficient during the last 50 years, partly because designers and manufacturers have developed thinner and thinner panels. But a solar power system for a single family residence still costs $20,000--$30,000. And there are limitations on the amount of electricity that a panel of any given size can generate.

Moreover, solar panels generate direct current, and virtually all appliances and lights in this country run on alternating current. An inverter converts the current from direct to alternating, but some power is lost in the process, and the need to include an inverter adds to the cost of the system.

Obviously, solar panels cannot generate electricity at night. So the user either needs to include a method of storing electricity (think batteries, lots of batteries) or maintain a connection to a conventional power provider, or both. Many electric utilities impose minimum monthly charges. Bottom line: solar-generating systems are often not economical. They seem to work best on small projects ( e.g. space satellites, stand-alone street signs, etc.) or larger projects like manufacturing facilities, office buildings, and possibly apartment complexes. All in all, it appears that solar power will remain niche player for the foreseeable future.

Overall conclusion

As I stated at the outset, none of these three strategies will provide us with energy independence. In fact, it is likely that all three of them together will not accomplish that goal. That certainly does not mean that these strategies are not worth pursuing, they are. Simultaneously pursuing these strategies will both increase the supply of energy and reduce the growth of demand (note that I said the growth of demand). Accomplishing these goals will make us both more prosperous and more secure. The problem is not that we lack options, but rather that we seem to lack the will to implement them.