• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Lorna Jack of Cambridge, MA writes:

In response to “Guv urges renewable sources rule,” from September 21 and the ongoing debate over the viability of renewable sources of energy: While the United States has been discussing the potential merits of alternative energy projects, Scotland has been able to set and exceed benchmarks for implementation, providing a solid example of what can reasonably be expected if a nation—or a state—puts its resources toward these goals. Our government has set ambitious targets – 20 percent by 2010 and 40% by 2020 – and we are well on track to meet them. Already, Scotland derives 13 percent of its power from renewable sources.
Like the American West, including Colorado, Scotland is blessed with abundant natural resources. We are home to 25 percent of Europe’s wind energy, and 25 percent of Europe’s potential tidal output. Additionally, we have made strides to develop a world-leading International Energy Academy in efforts to nurture the evolving renewable energy market.
Although Scotland has a smaller base from which to develop its renewable energy sector than the United States, we have nevertheless built a world-class presence within the alternative energy industry from all angles—solar, wind, tidal, biomass, geothermal and hydrogen fuel cells. We look forward to sharing our experience with the United States and to working together for a more sustainable future. Most of all, we look forward to a day when the question being debated is not whether to invest in alternative energy, but how.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Lorna - While I appreciate your letter and its goals and intentions, there are incredible differences between Scotland and the USA. I love Scotland, your culture and people, and specifically, I love a nice glass of 12 year old Macallan.
That said, Scotland could probably fit inside NY state. The USA has a $14 trillion GDP and 300 million people. We stretch 3000 miles and cover 4 time zones. We are also the lone democratic superpower left on Earth and though many Europeans and others are not too fond of our current POTUS and policies, wait until Putin and Russia start to gather a storm on your easter flanks and you all will once again be happy to look west for military aid and defense. (not to mention if Iran goes nuclear as well as Islamic terror groups)
The USA relies on oil, as does most of the world. It has served us well for 150 years and allowed the world to develop and sustain the greatest civilization the world has ever known. It will take time to make this transition to other energy sources - especially for a country as large and with as many responsibilities as the USA has. I am sure Scotland and its fine engineers will be there to help us do that.

I am always a bit puzzled when people use the term “renewable energy” or “renewable sources” of energy.
Whereas Scotland is certainly getting some from sources that will be around longer and have fewer noxious or deleterious byproducts, they aren’t putting the energy back into the wind or the waves, so we aren’t “renewing” them – there is no escape from the laws of thermodynamics.

Removing appreciable amounts of energy from waves or wind is also going to have climatic and ecological effects that are poorly understood at present.

Conserving energy is the key issue, since every use of energy results in higher heat gain by the ecosystem, an accumulation of damaging waste products, and a depletion of some ecological system.

It is certainly good to escape reliance on fossil-fuels like coal and oil, and also sources like wood and plant oils, but there is no free lunch (or free hydrogen), and we should not lose sight of the fact that we need to reduce global energy consumption for this to be a sustainable global ecosystem.

Michael - Our dependence on anything, including oil, is a military liability.

BS - you are right in a strict sense - wind, tidal, hydro, are all indirect forms of solar energy and, thermodynamically speaking, are not renewable. We take the sun as an infinite (in practical, not absolute terms) source of energy, as if it were renewable. Surely you know that??

Liam, yes I know that but it's good that you made the point.

What concerns me is that some people seem to imagine a sort of energy "recycling" going on, and this leads them to the false mindset that switching to so-called "renewable" sources will solve everything.

Although necessary, it would be insufficient, and also still doesn't solve the other thermodynamic problem that the heat we are releasing when we derive work from energy is increasing the planet's mean temperature.

Not only must we switch to sources that have fewer nasty byproducts, but we need to cut our energy use. I have seen some calculations that our current and projected energy demand exceeds that of the usable solar output reaching earth. So we are drawing from the stored energy of the past to cover our energy needs.
Without also reducing consumption, this becomes a downward cycle of borrowing, and an upward spiral of entropy and heating.

While it is obviously necessary to get away from fossil and other energy sources that have noxious byproducts, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that drawing appreciable amounts of energy from wind and waves (for example) would be without consequences.

Are you kidding? Reduce my energy usage? How un-American! It is my God, Allah, Jehova, Budda given right to us as much oil, gas, plastic, water, food, and drugs that I can afford.
If I reduce my consumption the economy will shrink. You don't want a recession on your hands.

"How un-American"

Yep, Americans are going to have to find themselves a new self-image that isn't predicated on waste.

I have some suggestions, like "the innovators", "the birthplace of technology", or "people who can face facts and take tough decisions".
Since “home of the brave” and democracy is seen as a core value, maybe “you the people” can come up with what you would like to be your new self-image.

If actors and politicians can re-invent themselves, why not a nation?

ok from this day forward we have to live just like we did 200 years ago and not use any oil period. get a horse and plant flowers in your cars. better learn to grow your own veggies and raise a pig and cow or two so you can have milk and bacon to go with your eggs if you get some chickens.
as of tomorrow we will have stopped our algore induced global warming and will be a really true green country and the rest of the world will be racing to join us. no wait that is laugh at us.

Bango -

... still doesn't solve the other thermodynamic problem that the heat we are releasing when we derive work from energy is increasing the planet's mean temperature.

But wind, hydo and the tides release heat as well (ie friction) so I'm not so sure our harnessing these would increase the planets temperature. Wouldn't that require either reducing the planet's energy sinks (ie hydrocarbons) or reducing the amount of heat radiated back into space?

06:54 said ” ok from this day forward we have to live just like we did 200 years ago and not use any oil period. get a horse and plant flowers in your cars. better learn to grow your own veggies and raise a pig and cow or two so you can have milk and bacon to go with your eggs if you get some chickens.”

I don’t think you quite understand bub, it’s not a question of trying to go back in time and technology, it’s a matter of going forward.
Although growing some of your own veggies is a laudable practice, it has little to do with wasteful energy use like too much cooling in summer, too much heating in winter, using the car aircon too much, using too much ice, inappropriate travel and vehicle design, and leaving cars idling.
These are all things YOU can do something about. You can also buy local and avoid buying things that need to be transported long distances.
On the supply side, we need far better efficiency in energy production and transmission. Our power grid is an embarrassment! You can inform your grocer and your politician that you want energy improvements and reward those that comply.

CL said ” But wind, hydo and the tides release heat as well (ie friction) so I'm not so sure our harnessing these would increase the planets temperature.”

Yes I agree, they do generate heat through friction (whilst also losing it through evaporation), but the answer lies in the steps leading to final use of energy acquired from these sources.
Let’s examine the balance sheet.
- The wind that drives the propeller blades would have gone on to cause friction elsewhere, now exhausts some of its kinetic energy moving the blade, slows, and thus does not generate friction elsewhere
- However, it generates friction against the blades to a degree probably equal to what it would otherwise have done.

So probably no difference.
However, as far as the electrical generation:

- There is a net increase in heat already released by the manufacturing, building, and commissioning of the wind generation system itself.
- The operation of the propeller, gearbox, and generator all release heat that would not otherwise have been released.
- Since wind farms are not often located in proximity to energy use, there are transmission losses – mainly through heat.

So, no, I suspect it doesn’t amount to the same as the wind itself producing heat.
There are also some climactic and ecological things to consider such as lowering of evaporation, pollination, and some other local effects resulting from lowering the wind velocity.

These are all probably far less of a concern than using coal, but still doesn’t amount to a free lunch.

” Wouldn't that require either reducing the planet's energy sinks (ie hydrocarbons) or reducing the amount of heat radiated back into space?”

Not quite sure that I follow you here.

Honestly, there is only one thing a true ecolib should do. to save the planet, they must become one with the earth. They must mulch themselves.

So, dig a nice hole in your backyard, lay down and cover yourself with leaves and rotting vegetation and do your duty!

Well Bangalore, it's a bit more complex than that ;)

” Wouldn't that require either reducing the planet's energy sinks (ie hydrocarbons) or reducing the amount of heat radiated back into space?”

Not quite sure that I follow you here.

Consider the earth as the system - with heat going in from the sun and heat going out by being radiated back into space. A portion of the heat going in is stored as potential chemical energy (coal, oil etc).

What I was trying to say is that if the earth's temperature is at equilibrium, you would need to either decrease the amount of heat going out or decrease the amount of heat stored as potential chemical energy (assuming the suns input remains constant) to get a net rise temperature.

But what I gather you are saying is that in harnessing the wind, for example, there is more heat generated therefore net temperatures will rise. The problem I have with this (and it may just be me, my thermo is quite rusty) is that it seems to imply that if the earth were left to itself, there would be an increase in potential work with time.

Somewhere in the past months, I saw an item about a devise that helps you use energy with less heat loss.

Many electrical devices, cell phone and message centers, give off heat. When your computer runs there is a motor to push out extra heat.

Has anyone heard of this device?

Bango, I think every transfer of energy, say wind to electrical to your lights, loses or dissipates energy. The idea of superconductors is to reduce this loss.

When we were hunter-gatherers we had a carbohydrate economy and now it is a hydrocarbon economy and this produces much more pollution.

CL, ok, I think I understand what you are asking.
If (and it’s a big if) the planet would be in equilibrium in terms of temperature, then is means that either the albedo is a perfect balance, or the planet is storing energy (hence your “potential work” phrase?).

The planet is an energy storage system.
Earth radiates less energy than received from:
- Sol and other weaker sources of radiation
- Impacts
- Gravitational pull
- Plus energy received during formation (heavy metals like uranium come from previous supernova, not from our own geology or Sol)

So biomass is mostly a heat-sink in the sense you used it, because it takes radiant energy that would have driven up the temperature, and other stored energy and builds complex unstable compounds. Photosynthesis is an example of that.
Over billions of years this process has incarcerated energy from the ecosystem and formed organic material like oil, tar, coal, peat, etc.
The energy stored in fissile material and a hot core and mantle are also of note.
What we are doing is not only releasing some of that stored energy as heat, but we also have released greenhouse gases and particulates that actually increase the opacity of the atmosphere and trap heat in the ecosystem that would otherwise have radiated into space. That is compounded even further by trapping more of the heat that resulted directly from radiant Solar energy.

So we have reversed the storage to a significant degree, crammed it into a much shorter timeframe, and then reduced how much can escape, whilst also releasing energy from fissile material and deliberately importing geothermal energy into the ecosystem.

No great wonder that the temperature would start climbing.

Sharon said ” Somewhere in the past months, I saw an item about a devise that helps you use energy with less heat loss”

Don’t know about any specific thing, but a well maintained transmission system and tuned transformers make a fair difference.
Superconductivity works well in enclosed production or transmission systems like at CERN or inside the MMR or PET scanners, but not so useful to get power to your house.

” When we were hunter-gatherers we had a carbohydrate economy and now it is a hydrocarbon economy and this produces much more pollution.”

Well yes, decomposition releases the same energy but over a far longer timeframe, and burning oil and coal, and using nuclear energy introduces heat that would otherwise not have been around at all.
However, there isn’t really a choice of going back to being simple hunter-gatherers, and I am pretty sure that if the current population were all lighting fires and cooking what they caught, picked, or dug up, the planet would be far worse off than it is now. ;)

BS, and there wouldn`t be a tree or cow flop left unburned.

POST A COMMENT

• Medical advice from the web
• How Iranian President was treated
• The Rocky Mountain Collegian editorial
• Illegal immigrant issues
• Iranian President Ahmadinejad
• Bill Johnson & Greeley forum
• J. Jackson & A. Sharpton are “racist agitators”
• Racism alive in America