SOLAR ENERGY

Scientific American has an article outlining a plan to turn America into a solar nation. I may not agree with every detail of the plan they outline, but these are exactly the kind of discussions that we need to be having (and SHOULD have been having for more than a decade!) so I recommend it. Here are the key concepts the Scientific American editors highlight:

* A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

* A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

* Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.

* A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

* But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

Solar isn't the whole answer, but it is a part of it. Wind is another technology we need to use and back in 1995 I read another Scientific American article outlining how the Great Plains states could, with the technology in existence THEN, be energy exporters using wind power alone. Too bad we didn't do it back then. Think of all the American jobs we could have created and carbon we could have saved. Other technologies either already in existence (geothermal and small scale hydroelectric) and currently nascent (various tidal technologies) can also make a difference.

One difference I have with the Scientific American article is that it imagines a solution that maintains the current dependence on centralized energy production with inefficient distribution systems. Now, they may be right in that is how a green energy grid will develop simply because of the corporate structure of American economics. But an increased use of decentralized grid makes more sense because it is more efficient, and thus cheaper, and is less exposed to disruption by terrorism, accidents or natural disasters. Better rules and incentives for rooftop solar and local wind projects could help develop a less centralized and more efficient grid, even if centralized power stations would still be needed.

One of the main problems with changing energy policy is that financial institutions have been very reluctant to invest in NEW technology and prefer to invest in old energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists urge us to contact financial institutions and urge them to invest in alternative energy rather than old school coal plants.

I also want to reiterate that investing in solar and wind energy has given EXCELLENT returns in the last year...some of the best investment returns seen in the last year. I also want to reiterate the point that despite the constant misinformation from the nuke industry, nuke energy is NOT a solution to global warming for various reasons, but most importantly because it takes upwards of 10 years to build a nuke plant and we don't HAVE 10 years to wait. We need the change to start NOW and solar and wind can be brought online almost immediately, not in 10 years. We may need to keep existing nuke plants online, but building new ones won't provide energy fast enough to make a difference. This is one of my complaints about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's energy plans. They seem to buy into the nuke industry's idea that nuke energy will save us.

For those interested in more info on alternative energy, some references include the alternative energy blog, Climate Counts, and Sustainblog.