The Future of Electricity

I probably wrote too much on this subject in Facebook, so I'm moving my thoughts here. What started this discussion was a Popular Science story on how all those solar panels people put up to reduce strain on "the grid" actually aren't as helpful as they could be. My friend Angela referred me to a somewhat longer piece by the New York Times on the same subject. Here follows my response, with a couple extra links/comments:

Okay, so I went back and read the NYT piece. I don't know how various systems ARE handling electrical power, but here's my slightly more-informed take on the issue:
1) A useful electrical grid should be focused on demand, not efficiency, even if that means redundancy. The general public is concerned with two primary issues when it comes to electricity: price and availability. I could be wrong, but my guess is that we're willing to pay slightly more for 100% availability.
2) The grid also should provide overlapping/surge capabilities to meet demand as required (e.g., regular business hours, the hottest part of summer days so people don't die of heatstroke, or during the coldest part of a winter night up north when temps drop to Antarctic levels).
3) Future solar panels can be built/added to the west sides of people's roofs/yards. If the government is serious about maintaining/improving electrical power during peak loads, they can offer incentives to help people pay to move their solar panels.
4) Another useful thing that could be done with roofs (for addressing climate change) is to paint them white or reflectively to increase the amount of sunlight being reflected into space instead of being absorbed by the ground.
5) If individuals have the wherewithal to provide themselves with electrical power through solar, generators, etc., they should be allowed to opt out of the grid. If there's a major disaster, such as a hurricane, the individual would have an equal or better chance of having power.
6) Consistent-output power systems (nuclear, natural gas, coal), should continue to provide base-load power. Solar and wind are just too fickle to depend upon for base power. The sun might be shining just brilliantly or the wind blowing like crazy during a peak-load time--in which case everyone wins. If there's a peak load and a cloudy, windless day or night, all those solar panels don't matter much.
7) Capacitor technologies are improving, as are other energy storage technologies (e.g. flywheels). If those can be made to harness the energy collected by solar/wind as generated and dispensed as needed, I can see a better system evolving--one that keeps environmentalists reasonably happy while continuing to allow our high-tech civilization to function and prosper.
 
My $.04.

Energy and Its Opponents

NASA "scientist" (the quotes are on purpose--he shifted from serious scientist to advocate years ago) has been arrested along with actress Darryl Hannah and others for obstructing traffic in a protest against coal power. Hansen is upset about global warming and its potentiallly catastrophic effects on the planet (ignoring the catastrophic effects brought about by another Ice Age).

We need a little rationality on the energy debate, which we are unlikely to get, because the two "sides" of the issue are at serious cross-purposes:

1. Global warming is happening! It's serious, deadly, and we need to act NOW to prevent an even greater catastrophe!
2. Climates are changing all the time via "weather." Why don't we collect more data before we make a bad decision that does more harm than good?

Then there's the fact that global climate change advocates' solutions for the problem lead inevitably to a contracting of the Western way of life. Consider their treatment of the primary forms of energy used today:

1. Petroleum: A finite resource that is the primary creator of pollution and global warming.
2. Nuclear: Too dangerous due to potential meltdowns (even though Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear power accident in American history, never hurt a single human being).
3. Coal: It's "dirty," and must be eliminated.
4. Natural gas: A finite resource, essentially a form of petroleum, and so must be subject to restrictions or rationing.
5. Hydroelectric: Dams can drown or destroy animal and plant habitats (human habitats are conveniently ignored).
6. Ground-based solar: Ideal (even though it produces less than 1% of U.S. energy needs and is essentially useless on cloudy days, at night, and at higher latitudes with lower amounts of sunlight).
7. Geothermal: Okay (but limited to places where geothermal vents are present).
8. Wind: Ideal (even though the wind doesn't blow all the time, and if we want to keep our economy functioning at the current levels, we'd need hundreds of thousands of them--oh, and where are we going to get the energy and petrochemicals necessary to manufacture these windmills?).

These sources haven't been used yet, but protests can't be far away...

1. Space-based solar power: No organized lobby against SBSP, though I can imagine it will be objected to on public safety and military grounds ("It could be used as a weapon to fry people!").
2. Helium-3 fusion: Another energy source so far lacking an enemy. However, it is nuclear power (you know--like that sun that's providing solar power?), and so must be evil, even if it hasn't been accomplished yet.
3. Tide and Ocean-thermal electric conversion (OTEC): Tidal energy hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but would probably get negative points for cluttering up rich people's beachfront property. OTEC would require very large, oil derrick-like structures over the deep places in the ocean. You run a cable down to the cold regions of the deep ocean, and the temperature difference creates a potential difference, and thus electrical current. No doubt these structures would be protested for being ugly in the middle of nowhere.

Anyhow, I can only assume that those who protest all useful energy production must have a death wish. The internet takes energy. Creating plastic computers (you know: Macs) requires energy and petrochemicals. Creating high-productivity fertilizers to improve crop productivity and feed the hungry millions of the world requires energy. Creating new pharmaceuticals to keep everyone healthy requires energy plus complex chemistry, often found in petrochemicals. CAT scans, MRIs, and other medical wonders require energy to operate and energy to manufacture. Coffee makers require energy to manufacture and operate. Even bicycles and basic garden tools require energy to be produced--energy often provided by hydrocarbons (aka petroleum). Trucks, trains, and aircraft require fuel to transport necessary goods to stores.

We cannot cut ALL of the high-density energy resources from our economy, or millions, nay, billions of human beings will starve for lack of food, transportation, and medicine. The upcoming "cap and trade" legislation is simply a tax on energy, and it will hurt everybody in the name of a cause that has yet to close its scientific case. When are we going to say "Enough!"?