Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Getting Off Fossil Fuels

I have no fantastical insights about just how we're going to get ourselves off fossil fuels, or even any certainty of the costs of not doing so. The matter of Earth Hour this past weekend is one I wrote about, demonstrating a view that, if not the new mainstream opinion, is at least in agreement with the lack of action of others - there was only a 6% dip in electrical power consumption during that hour, even less than what I, a non-participant, expected.

This article in Cosmic Variance certainly stirred some deeply-held feelings among what is arguably a scientifically-astute audience. The referenced New York Times article on Freeman Dyson (warning: it's very long) is also a worthwhile read about an eminent scientist with skeptical views and a eye on a broader cost-benefit analysis of carbon emissions.

As I opened with, it isn't my intention to get into an argument for one side of the other. What I do want to say is that, like it or not, we will have to adopt alternatives regardless of our individual views and knowledge. It is simply because fossil fuels are a finite resource; there will be an end to it.

It is true that there's an enormous amount of coal, centuries worth, but we can't use it for transportation without even more expensive processing than for the tar sands to convert it into usable liquids. As production declines and the costs of new sources rise there will be a secular and permanent upward tilt to energy prices. This will happen regardless of how clean we can burn the fuel; environmental impacts (or lack of them) won't change this outcome.

To me it makes good sense to ramp up exploration and basic research for alternatives. Even if everyone were to turn hard-core environmentalist overnight, there is today no good alternative other than simply doing without. That will wreak havoc with our standard of living. Some would happily accept that while others would not. My point is that, regardless of individual views on global warming, pollution and consumerism, we will have to change, and it would be best if we start working very hard now so that we can get to a position where we can make the change - a non-disruptive change - to alternative energy sources.

Fossil fuels are certainly finite and dirty, yet still very affordable. Yes, even at $150 per barrel. The bigger issue is the opportunity cost of not preparing for the transition. If we wait until the dollar cost forces us, one by one, to make hard decisions in our individual lives, we will have irretrievably lost time we could have put to developing new energy technologies.

Today I do not see a sufficiently broad commitment to doing the necessary work; not among politicians and not among the population. Turning out the lights for one hour, lights that aren't powered by fossil fuels, may make people feel good enough about themselves that they forget about the challenge for another year. That doesn't help.

Unfortunately it looks like it will be awhile until there is a strong enough turn in the public mood, or fear, for us to get serious about steering our economy in a new direction.

No comments: