The Myth of Alternative Energy
THE MYTH OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Peter Goodchild
petergoodchild [at] interhop [dot] net
Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful, for several reasons, but mainly because of a problem of “net energy”: the amount of energy output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input. These alternative sources are so dependent on the very petroleum that they are intended to replace that the use of them is largely self-defeating. They ultimately don’t have enough “bang” to replace 30 billion annual barrels of oil -- or even to replace more than the tiniest fraction of that amount.
Petroleum is required to extract, process, and transport almost any other form of energy; a coal mine is not operated by coal-powered equipment. It takes “oil energy” to make “alternative energy.”
The use of unconventional oil (shale deposits, tar sands, heavy oil) poses several problems besides that of net energy. In the first place, even if we optimistically assume that about 700 billion barrels of unconventional oil could be produced, that amount would equal only about 15 years of global oil demand. Secondly, the pollution problems are considerable, and it is not certain how much environmental damage the human race is willing to endure. Thirdly, since conventional oil is still cheap and profitable, government and industry will not be motivated to begin serious work on the development of unconventional oil until conventional oil is no longer available -- at which point any effort will be too little, too late. In fact, at the moment, unconventional oil is only a tiny fraction of the world’s petroleum production, and there are no major technological breakthroughs in sight. Even if all these problems could be solved, the human population will continue to increase, and developing nations will be trying to industrialize. With unconventional oil we are, quite literally, scraping the bottom of the barrel.
More-exotic forms of alternative energy are plagued with even greater problems. Fuel cells cannot be made practical, because such devices require hydrogen derived from fossil fuels (coal or natural gas), if we exclude designs that will never escape the realm of science fiction; if fuel cells ever became popular, the fossil fuels they require would then be consumed even faster than they are now. Biomass energy (perhaps from wood, animal dung, peat, corn, or switchgrass) would require impossibly large amounts of land and would still result in insufficient quantities of net energy, perhaps even negative quantities. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their practical limits. Solar, wind, and geothermal power are only effective in certain areas and for certain purposes; such types of power, in any case, are only of significant value when converted into electrical energy, requiring the use of disposable batteries -- a practice as ecologically unsound as the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power will soon be suffering from a lack of fuel and is already creating serious environmental dangers.
Petroleum, unfortunately, is the perfect fuel, and nothing else even comes close. There will never be a solar-powered airplane. The problem with flying pigs (as in “when pigs can fly”) is not that we have to wait for scientists to perfect the technology; the problem is that the pig idea is not a good one in the first place. To maintain an industrial civilization, it’s either oil or nothing.
Another unrealistically optimistic thought is that we are shifting from an oil-based culture to an information-based one: computers, we are told, will soon replace trucks. To say that high technology reduces mankind’s need for petroleum, however, is an act of faith that is not born out by the figures on world consumption of oil.
The quest for alternative sources of energy is not merely illusory; it is actually harmful. By daydreaming of a noiseless and odorless utopia of windmills and solar panels, we are reducing the effectiveness of whatever serious information is now being published. When news articles claim that there are simple painless solutions to the oil crisis, the reader’s response is not awareness but drowsiness. We are rapidly heading toward what has been described as the greatest disaster in history, but we are indulging in escapist fantasies. All talk of alternative energy is just a way of evading the real issue: that the Industrial Age is over.
- Login to post comments
Concur
Peter
I totally agree with you that we are constantly being seduced by salvation through technological solutions. That seems to be the only way our current economic and social paradigm can cope with the challenges ahead.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2157823,00.html
It is impossible to substitute the current quantity of oil we use with biofuels. There is still discussion over the energy it takes to grown and process biomass into fuel and the return on this investment.
A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro et. al. (1997) concludes: "Large-scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it."
Giampietro, M., Ulgiati, S. and Pimentel, D. 1997. Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production: Does an enlargement of scale change the picture? BioScience 47 (9): 587-600.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~bests/Net%20Energy/Giampietro%20et%20al.%201997.pd...
Also David Pimentel, a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has conducted research he says shows ethanol's promise as an alternative fuel is greatly overstated because it is not economical to produce. In an article for the 3rd edition of the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology, Pimentel asserts it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than ethanol can create. He also says that for ethanol to be a substitute for gasoline, and fuel all the cars in the United States, 97 percent of U.S. land would have to planted with corn.
Pimentel, D (2002) Limits of Biomass Utilization. In Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 3rd ed., vol. 2. San Diego: Academic Press, 159-71.
Pimentel (1998) also states: "Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems."
‘Energy and dollar costs of ethanol production with corn’ http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4ST6fv7nnqEJ:hubbert.mines.edu/news...
We also have to consider the fertility of our soils which have been artificially enhanced over the past 100 years to make them more productive. This chemical enrichment has been due to the fertilizers produced from fossil fuels. This has been a growing concern of Wes Jackson former Professor of Environmental Studies at the California State University Sacramento, and the founder and current president of The Land Institute. Climate Change and water scarcity will in the future be of great concern as well.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/wesjackson.htm
http://www.landinstitute.org/
Research is underway looking at alternative sources of biofuels such as algae. My personal concern is that we are still tinkering at the edges when in fact it’s a systemic change that is required.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/8/prweb547601.htm
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9765452-7.html
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GAFCCAB.php
We are going through a major upheaval and will not find solutions that are produced by the system that is creating the problems (to paraphrase Einstein). We have to priorities the use of energy and enable communities to work and function in a radically different way than they do today.
Ian
Generating myths
What a great article, Peter. My favourite myth is that technology tomorrow will answer today's problems.. created by today's technology. And just why should that be?
Chinese proverbs are always the best: if we carry on as we have done (and we are), we'll end up where we're going (and we will).
Oliver
Fusion
Fusion may well still come good, though not in less than 50 years. Fusion would certainly redeem its carbon input, and if the money were available could alone provide all the energy we need.
Harnessing Fusion
Robert
Harnessing Fusion has always been a great concept but has yet to produce in reality. It seems to be soaking up a great deal of money and is still far from being a usable source of energy. Do we keep investing in Fusion or should be invest in other forms of renewables which are more proven?
Ian
I think so
Hello Ian,
My opinion on whether a fusion power future may exist is largely derived of this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24295 , which I read in the Institute of Physics publication, ‘Physics World’. Here they state that (for short bursts) the current experiment ‘JET’ has produced as much power as it takes in, and forecast that with just two intermediate experiments, commercial fusion power could be a reality by some (indeterminate, but presumably short) excess of 2035.
The article, by explaining some of the problems faced in the development of fusion power makes the project appear within grasp, though they’re probably absolutely adept at doing that, given their funding demands!
I agree that fusion could be, from the right vantage point, viewed as the world’s get out clause, bought in so that people can argue we don’t need to worry about the way development is achieved. However, the article does make the project seem realistic, and the fruits if it worked would be a zero emissions, virtually limitless power supply. Consequently I think we should risk it.
Minimising the risk is of course a great idea, but fusion is a global effort, so I can’t imagine the coordination necessary for a funding cut will come about. All other steps to save the world will (and I think should) have to come from the funding and efforts fusion spares.
Robert
Fission v Fusion
Robert
I wonder why governments like ours in the UK are still backing Fission and want to invest billions into this industry? It would still would take decades to put any new fission plant on line and meanwhile as you said fusion could then be catching up. Do they still have doubts about the viability of fusion plants?
Perhaps governments should invest in fusion as the nuclear preference for all centralised power and use other renewables as a distributed locally based infrastructure.
My own personal opinion is that we are still too enamoured with the industrial / technological fix and we are not looking at the more fundamental problems which are systemic and linked to the concept of progress and its relationship to the way we live. Population growth, resource depletion such as the end of cheap liquid fuels, water shortages and environmental degradation etc. should make us start to re-think the social and environment reality we are in. This reality has been created and the economic system we currently use is an aspect of this reality. We have to start thinking differently about these issue, to quote Maslow ' "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."
Ian