The False Promise of Alternative Power

| |
Related articles: Opinion > Viewpoints

When you hear the issue of climate change discussed in the media, the discussion likely focuses on the degree to which carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) result in warming the planet. It is often accompanied by a discussion of alternatives to fossil fuels, as if alternative energy is largely a derivative problem, rather than one in its own right.

I take a different view. Apart from climate change, energy critically affects national security and the economy. Fossil fuels make us dependent on hostile nations, and they produce pollution in many forms, such as damage to the environment (oil spills), emissions of dangerous chemicals (sulfur dioxide), and radiation. Thus a new, robust source of power that is not based on coal, oil, or natural gas would solve a number of problems, with the issue of the effect of CO2 emissions on the climate rendered irrelevant.

Unfortunately, with the exception of nuclear power, proposals for alternative energy are not viable. They simply do not provide enough energy. Furthermore, when you look at the full process, they may increase CO2 emissions. For example, electric cars may require more coal plants.

Proposals for alternative energy may also, like hydrogen, require more energy to produce than they provide. They will not provide net new jobs—replacing efficient energy with inefficient sources will no more advance the economy than replacing trucks with horses. Some examples:

Ethanol. Ethanol requires almost as much energy to create as it produces. Its yield is very low: The grain required to fill an SUV tank with ethanol once equals what a person eats in a year.

The removal of large tracts of land from food production has dramatically raised world food prices by reducing supplies. As a result, there have been food riots, with millions of people exposed to hunger. A food consultant for the U.N. called it a “crime against humanity.” Furthermore, ethanol from corn requires fertilizers that increase nitrous oxide emissions that are themselves greenhouse gases like CO2, only more powerful.

Hydrogen. Hydrogen is not freely available, but must be extracted from molecules such as water. To do so requires more energy than it produces. Hydrogen is also flammable and hard to contain.

Wind and Solar Energy. Thousands of wind turbines are required to provide the power of a standard (fossil fuel or nuclear) plant. They must be spaced widely apart to prevent the air flow of one from interfering with that of the next, meaning that wind farms must consume hundreds of times the land that standard plants require. Furthermore, the power must be transported from wind farms to cities. Because the wind is highly variable, turbines must be backed up by traditional power sources anyway.

The same is true of solar plants, which work best in warm climates with direct sunlight. Interestingly, environmentalists themselves have opposed these installations due to environmental damage and land requirements. Household installations of solar power may have some limited long-term potential, but are expensive to install and maintain, and may require devices to convert the electricity created from DC to AC.

Hydropower. River dams offer a modest contribution to national energy needs (about 3 percent), but the most productive sites are already used up, and dams radically alter the environment.

As a result of their deficiencies, alternative power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities buy inefficient power; otherwise, the barely noticeable fraction of power they now offer, (less than 1 percent for solar and wind), would drop further.

Furthermore, to reduce fossil fuel use, massive “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary energy source. These three policies will result in the direct and indirect cost to the world economy of trillions of dollars.

Nuclear Energy. I see no alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. It reduces our dependence on hostile countries, so it can be justified regardless of where one stands on global warming. Its yield exceeds that of fossil fuels by a factor of millions because it alone utilizes the energy in the nucleus of the atom, providing the enormous energy described by Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2. (Most energy sources rely on the limited chemical energy of electron bonds.)

Nuclear plants are safer than coal plants and produce less radiation. Furthermore, they can directly produce electricity and power our cars by providing electricity for batteries, making a hydrogen infrastructure (and the “Cash for Clunkers” program) unnecessary.

Unfortunately, there are irrational biases against nuclear power, and environmentalists widely oppose it, though some are taking a second look. Let’s hope more do so.

Arthur Wiegenfeld is an independent investor in New York City. He has training in physics, computer simulation, finance, and economics. Comments to artw@rcn.com.