Future Investment: Dump the Fossil Power

Electricity is probably the most important concept to modern society. Think about it, how many things do you use on a daily basis that require electricity to work? Any computer, and let's face it, computers are in an astonishing amount of things these days, cars, our methods of food preparation, even something as basic as lighting all require electricity to function. It's absolutely fantastic progress. But, this electricity has to be generated somehow. Thanks to demand, these generation means must be high output. Unfortunately for us, we have become reliant on means that are not sustainable, their fuels are not renewable: methods such as coal, natural gas, and oil. The problem with relying purely on these methods is that they rely on resources that we only have a finite amount of. At some point, we will run out. Another problem with the methods is the amount of pollution they emit. Each one releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, as well as other various harmful and toxic elements, such as mercury.

However, all is not lost. There are other options available to us. Options such as wind power, solar power, even hydroelectric power do not pollute at the point of generation, and don't cause much pollution in construction, either. Also, each are capable of generating the power that we need, in the quantities that we need it in. The best part? Even with our current technology, it is entirely possible to cut our power generation from non-renewable resources by at least 75% within the next ten years, maybe even more.

As with every idea or plan, however, there are critics. Those who oppose the idea of the switch decry it as being too expensive. When just the bottom line is looked at, in the short term, yes, it is a very costly proposal. The technology is unfortunately young, and with young technology comes a high price. For the entire world to switch to renewable generation by 2030, the cost is right around $100 trillion. Sounds like a hefty bill, right? Obviously, the US's bill is going to be considerably less, but still a staggering number. There is no denying, then, that the short term costs are staggering. But, what about the long term costs? What if we were to stay with fossil fuel powered generation? Giles Parkinson reckons that the cost of staying will be double that. The costs of the fuels itself will only rise, as we use more and more of the planet's reserves. This can be seen already in the cost of gasoline, which is, at the time of this writing, is already spiraling well above the $4 a gallon mark. In comparison, the cost of renewable generation technology is going down as the technology ages and gets more advanced.

The costs are going down for production, but what about demand? Is the idea of switching feasable at this level? Yes, when implemented correctly. There is enough space in the US alone to generate at least 40 terrawatts (tW) from wind generation alone, and enough space to generate 580 tW from solar! Compare this to the current demand of 1.8 tW in the US, and is projected to rise to 16.9 tW. Even when just wind is considered, there is more than enough generation potential. When combined, utilizing the roof space we already have and the empty space so common in the country, solar and wind generation is able to generate power far in excess of our current and projected needs. A recent re-study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collated data regarding atmospheric conditions across the US. From this data, NOAA was able to conclude what option was best for each region across the US.

This is still going to be a large project, no matter how it's broken down. But, it's not so big that it's impossible. In this need, there is also an opportunity. Such a massive project is going to need a large amount of humanpower to undertake. Where are we going to get it? Unfortunately for us currently, but fortunately for this problem, there is no denying that there is an alarming unemployment rate in the country. There is a huge amount of Americans who are unemployed, and cannot find jobs, which means the talent pool is massive. This is a prime opportunity for the US to take a lesson from history. This project is a wonderful way to put the thousands of Americans to work, we need humanpower to make the machinery, install it, and maintain it. A mobilization of skill such as this is nothing new to American history. We've done it before, and it's entirely possible to do it again. Take a look at World War II. During that period, the US managed to completely retool automobile factories and churn out 300,000 aircraft in the period of a few short years. Other countries managed about 486,000 more. Another great example of what the US is capable of is the US Interstate System. Over a span of 35 years, starting in 1956, over 47,000 miles of roadway was laid, costing several billion dollars. The humanpower talent is there. It just needs to be harnessed.

The feasability is there, but say, for whatever reason, we decide to stay with our current generation methods. What would happen to us? What options do we have available to us? The most obvious is what powers us right now: coal and oil. The costs of both of these fuels is rising. At some point, possibly within the next 20, maybe 30 years, the cost of staying with those two will exceed that of fronting the cost for wind and solar energy. But, ignoring that, say we still stick to coal. At some point, we'd need to address the pollution problem better than it is now. One suggestion addressing the problem is carbon capturing. This technology removes carbon dioxide from the exhaust gasses of, say, a power plant or a petroleum refinery, purifies it, compresses it, and then pumps it a mile or so underground, from whence it came. Sounds like a neat idea, but unfortunately, there are problems with it. One such issue has to do with the sheer amount of pressure the carbon dioxide is under when they inject it into the ground. Even underground, it will want to expand, pushing into saline aquifers which, in turn, pushes the salt water into freshwater aquifers. This essentially renders them unsuable for our purposes. Another problem with this solution is the amount of energy required to do it. A coal plant equipped with carbon capturing facilities burns up to 36% more coal while treating its emissions, according to an article written by Andrew Nikiforuk, in the Alternatives Journal. This means they need to buy more coal, costing them more money. Money consumers wind up paying through their rates. A final issue is one of scale. Nikiforuk points out that it's not going to be the one thing that solves our coal generation problems. In order to capture, compress, and bury just 25% of the carbon made by the generation process, we would need to build twice the petroleum infrastructure that we have now.

Fossil fuels just are not a good idea for a future power generation solution. Sticking with alternatives to the alternative, what about nuclear power? It's clean. The only thing it releases into the atmosphere under normal, day to day use is steam. It produces a huge amount of power, and France at one point in time generated a large majority of its power from nuclear energy. Japan generated most of its power from nuclear energy up until early 2011. But again, there are downsides. Japan's biggest reason as to why they stopped generating their power by nuclear energy is just the most recent example of the most often cited argument against nuclear power. Things don't often go wrong, but when they do, they go horribly, horribly wrong. An even better example is the one found near a deserted village in Ukraine, the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Even today, some 26 years after the fact, the land around the station and the village itself is completely unuseable. A final example, one that hits closer to home, can be seen in Three Mile Island, a nuclear power station in Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island still to this day paints a very good picture of the general opinion in the US towards nuclear power generation. Although the meltdown was very minor, and nonlethal to humans, there was still a massive outcry against nuclear power, one that lasted for decades. Until the US can get over its fears of nuclear power, it is just not a forseeable option.

This brings us back to the option initially studied here: renewable resource-generated electricity. Although the initial investment cost is high, the alternatives are even more expensive. The installation of the technology will open up a very large market for unemployment, giving job opportunities to thousands upon thousands of unemployed Americans. Another good thing about the technology is that it will free up fossil fuel resources for applications better suited for them, things like transportation, where alternative means either are in their infancy, or just plain don't exist. It is entirely possible for Ameica to make the switch. Now we just need to have the bravery and willingness to do it.