Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

We Actually Can?!

By Miguel Mendonça, Author
October 28, 2009   |   6 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
October 30, 2009
Thank Miquel for sharing your reflections and view of models for change. As a development worker with some experience in renewable energy impacts in 'base of the pyramid' applications I agree. Sustained change will take sustained action and a williness to to challenge the "non-negotable for thousand well-rehearsed reasons!
No image available
Comment
2 of 6
Anonymous
October 30, 2009
The author writes: "As a researcher and writer, one naturally gets to read a few books. However, I was absolutely astonished to find that it was one of my own, A Renewable World, that actually gave me, for the first time as a professional environmentalist, real hope."

Perhaps it is common that authors like their own books best, but it is less common that they brag about it in such smug terms. Now I have something to be astonished by in his writing too....

He also writes: "In Germany today, where the new government has lurched to the right, even it, that would prefer nothing but coal and nuclear energy, cannot eradicate renewable energy."

This is a gross distortion. Merkel has been a very strong supporter of limits on CO2 emissions and it is absolute nonsense to suggest that her new government supports coal. It does support keeping the current nuclear reactors operating longer; this is partly because keeping these facilities open as long as possible facilitates the transformation from fossil fuels to those that don't emit large amounts of CO2. I wonder whether the author is clueless or biased and deceptive, but I already know enough not to waste my time on his book....
Steven
Comment
3 of 6
October 31, 2009
Anonymous Steven: your comment over-simplifies the position. While Dr Merkel indeed support carbon emission reductions, the new government is a coalition depending on the "business friendly" FDP, i.e. friends of big business. That includes the four major electricity utilities.
They don't like people having their own power stations (renewables) and much prefer to retain control over supply, so that they can sell electricity for tasty profits. Which means large scale centralised generation (I reckon this is also why they are keen on 'Desertec' solar power from north Africa). Large scale means in turn gas, nuclear – and coal.
Nuclear involves lower emissions - though is certainly not 'zero carbon'. So the utilities can argue that more nuclear (lower carbon) + coal (high carbon) nets out to an acceptable level of emissions.
Their problem, as Miguel points out, is that the renewables industry is now an important part of the economy, employing far more people than nuclear and coal put together. Renewables are also very popular, and nuclear not. Which may explain recent signs of backing away from steep cuts in PV suppoprt - that the FDP want - which threatened to destroy that industry.
Comment
4 of 6
October 31, 2009
Renewable energy literally changes the protocol for energy production. I am a developer who is creating two sites, in northern New England. One site is on a modest sized mountain and will eventually have 215 to 250 towers. The second site is approx.55 miles south and will have approximately 325-345 towers. Unlike previous energy systems wind energy will require much more employment (per kilowat hour) for a multitude of wind towers which require constant maintenance 24/7....no matter what the weather is at the time it is needed. Each commercial wind tower is approximately 225' high, or it is a 25 story building. That will require someone to climb up 25 stories of building...just to lubricate the moving parts of the windmill. Accordingly, there will be a lot of jobs in these systems, because although they will be servicing an efficient system...but, wind energy REQUIRES CONSTANT MAINTENANCE!!! Other than that, the renewable system should be a great advantage to whichever location it is finally set up/located/operated.
Ray the energy developer!
No image available
Comment
5 of 6
Anonymous
October 31, 2009
Steve-Plater:
Regarding some of your points in comment #3:

Naturally, a few lines cannot possibly convey the full complexity of an entire nation's energy policy, but the author's remarks implying a strong support for coal are very clearly untrue--the situation is quite the opposite.

Large centralized generation is not limited to the methods you discuss. Geothermal, large hydro, large wind farms, concentrating solar thermal, large PV installations, etc. could all qualify for that category.

Nuclear fission produce zero CO2--it is not a "low carbon" technology it is carbon neutral. Neither the production nor the fuel nor the plants require any CO2 producing energy input, although, as with any other renewable equipment, the manufacture could have relied on some of the extent fossil fuel generation. Keeping Germany's nuclear facilities open longer will allow renewables to improve their scalability and allow them to better compete for that slice of the generation market once nuclear generation is finally phased out--if the nuclear plants were removed now most of the replacement generation would have to come from fossil fuel sources.
Steven
No image available
Comment
6 of 6
Anonymous
October 31, 2009
In comment #3 Steven-Plater writes: "Their problem, as Miguel points out, is that the renewables industry is now an important part of the economy, employing far more people than nuclear and coal put together"

and in comment #4 Raymond writes: "Unlike previous energy systems wind energy will require much more employment (per kilowat hour) for a multitude of wind towers which require constant maintenance 24/7"

Installation of new equipment is labor intensive, so if a particular generation scheme is expanding rapidly it will naturally employ more people than stagnant schemes. High employment needs for maintenance and ongoing operations isn't beneficial though--this increases costs. Cheaper energy prices will do more to improve the overall employment outlook than labor intensive energy technologies will. I'd like to see fewer coal miners and wind turbine lubricators and more engineers, physicians, artists, and pastry chefs....
Steven
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Miguel Mendonca

View Miguel Mendonca's Profile
About: Miguel Mendonça is Research Manager for the World Future Council. His background is in forestry, horticulture, geography, history, journalism, social science an... more »

Advertise With Us

Solar Energy International (SEI) KACO new energy, Inc. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. Southwest Windpower Second Wind Inc. Interstate Renewable Energy Council UnThink Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters