I think drastically reducing our contribution to climate
change and averting its worst effects over the next 50
years while we turn it around will be the number one
global priority for several generations. Can we expect
any one solution to accompish this alone? Can we afford
to wipe off the table any of our available technologies
while we figure out the combination that gives us the
best result, i.e., the most energy at the least
environmental cost?
Of course nuclear has to be in there, at least in the
next few generations, until effective substitutes can be
developed--although nuclear is becoming an increasingly
sound technology will only continue to improve. Wind
power and solar power--for some reason they have been
"just around the corner" for the last 30 years, since I
started studying environmental science in college. They
may someday come into their own as viable, reliable
energy resources, as may biofuels, geothermal and
others. The problem is, we have arrived at the point
where we need to act now, not later.
As for Germany's "successful" use of wind power,
perhaps you'd be interested in the comments of a German
scientist I spoke with at a conference last year. He
told me that because of the geographical relationship of
Germany to the large land mass (mainly Russia) to the
east, his country gets wind in the summer but virtually
none in the winter. That means the windmills aren't
working when the people need heat. Altogether wind
supplies about 4 percent of his country's energy, he
said. All renewables combined provide a grand 10
percent, including hydropower.
A giant push to bring more windmills on line is
underway in Germany. At the time of our conversation,
about 17,000 turbines had been erected, covering an area
about half the size of Arizona. He talked also about the
disruptive effect of the turbines on the visual
landscape, which Germans had preserved from development
through strict zoning for hundreds of years. Are these
things not worth our consideration when we weigh our
energy alternatives?
These are complex questions that deserve thoughtful,
open-minded attention, not dogma. The tools we have for
producing energy may not be perfect but I think we must
use them as best we can while working to improve them
for the challenges we face now.
Of course nuclear has to be in there, at least in the next few generations, until effective substitutes can be developed--although nuclear is becoming an increasingly sound technology will only continue to improve. Wind power and solar power--for some reason they have been "just around the corner" for the last 30 years, since I started studying environmental science in college. They may someday come into their own as viable, reliable energy resources, as may biofuels, geothermal and others. The problem is, we have arrived at the point where we need to act now, not later.
As for Germany's "successful" use of wind power, perhaps you'd be interested in the comments of a German scientist I spoke with at a conference last year. He told me that because of the geographical relationship of Germany to the large land mass (mainly Russia) to the east, his country gets wind in the summer but virtually none in the winter. That means the windmills aren't working when the people need heat. Altogether wind supplies about 4 percent of his country's energy, he said. All renewables combined provide a grand 10 percent, including hydropower.
A giant push to bring more windmills on line is underway in Germany. At the time of our conversation, about 17,000 turbines had been erected, covering an area about half the size of Arizona. He talked also about the disruptive effect of the turbines on the visual landscape, which Germans had preserved from development through strict zoning for hundreds of years. Are these things not worth our consideration when we weigh our energy alternatives?
These are complex questions that deserve thoughtful, open-minded attention, not dogma. The tools we have for producing energy may not be perfect but I think we must use them as best we can while working to improve them for the challenges we face now.
Best,
Nancy E. Roth
Science writer