There was a video going around some years ago – an “exposé” on wind farms. Besides the issue of bird kills, the video played up the relatively short lifespan of the turbines, and the fact that the blades aren’t recyclable (which isn’t entirely accurate and will be less so in the future). It was when the program switched to touting “clean” fossil fuels that the slant became clear. The piece must have gotten a lot of airplay on right-wing media; shortly after I had watched (and written off) the show, someone rattled off its talking points to me, finishing with “so renewable energy isn’t so renewable, is it?”
No, it isn’t. The fact is, every source of energy has a cost. The costs of using fossil fuels are well known. Strip mines destroy landscapes, while underground mines destroy lungs. Burning coal leaves toxic ash and air pollution. Oil and natural gas likewise have their problems, during extraction, processing, and burning. But what about renewables?
Hydroelectric? A river valley disappears, the downstream river is diminished, fish are blockaded.
Solar? None of my biologist colleagues have a good word for solar farms; good forest habitat or farmland becomes a giant lawn, good for nothing. I visited a landowner last week whose land is developing gullies due to runoff from the adjacent solar farm – an issue he never had when the land was a forest. Solar panels on buildings or over parking lots are far better options, since by collecting radiant energy they keep the surfaces beneath from heating up. Anyone living in the South can appreciate the advantages of a canopy over their car when the weather is in the sunny 90s.
Geothermal? You have me there. However, geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, and wind all require non-renewable resources to create the equipment necessary to harness the power, as well as the facilities and networks to transfer said power from the source to the consumer.
Biofuels? First-generation biofuels such as ethanol need the same inputs as regular crops – fertilizers, diesel-run tractors, and such. More advanced processes use waste materials or algae (a definite improvement) but still have environmental costs.
Does nuclear count? The fuel is mined, the deadly waste is a pain to store, and mishaps can be catastrophic on a regional or continental scale, so I wouldn’t say so. However, given the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay, it boils water like nobody’s business, providing cheap electricity.
And when you get down to it, most of these power sources don’t provide power in themselves. They are simply there to move some form of wind or water to turn a contraption with magnets and wires in such a way as to create an electrical current.
So, sure, renewable energy has downsides, just like fossil fuels. But as mentioned in the beginning of this essay, fossil fuels poison the extractors, wildlife, land, water, and anyone who breathes. The overwhelming body of evidence, collected and analyzed by scientists across the globe, leaves no room for doubt. When you rationally compare the pluses and minuses to each, it becomes clear that non-renewable fossil fuels cost us much more in the long run. They are not, despite what the lobbies insist, “clean” fuels.
Everything we do has a cost. Most of us don’t feel that cost, and therefore we are not aware of it. I’m writing this using electricity, which is how you are reading it. I am in favor of a power grid run on renewable power. I am in favor of finding alternatives to fossil fuels. But I believe we should understand that energy is never free, and make our choices accordingly.
Towards the Moon or To the Sun 
You must be logged in to post a comment.