It’s the essential challenge of our attempt to wean ourselves from old, reliable fossil fuels for energy:
From the dust-blown steppes of Inner Mongolia to the waters off Shanghai, China installed more wind turbines in the first half of 2010 than any other country — 7,800 megawatts of potential power production, or more than the United States, the European Union, and India combined. In fact, in northeast China alone, autumn and winter winds now produce some 17 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, roughly 5.5 percent of the total power generation in the region. That’s up from 534 million kilowatt hours just five years ago.
But despite this rapid progress, wind energy still only generates a tiny fraction of China’s electricity. Indeed, even with aggressive government backing and green energy mandates, such “new energy” — including wind, solar, nuclear power plants, and biomass — accounts for less than 3 percent of China’s electricity production, compared to more than 70 percent provided by coal, which produces roughly 3 metric tons of carbon dioxide for every metric ton of the dirty, black rock burned. And as China’s economy continues to expand at a dizzying rate for the foreseeable future, wind and other renewable sources of energy will not even be able to keep pace with new demand, meaning fossil fuel burning will continue unabated.
This is hardly unique to China. In the U.S., electricity produced from the breeze has increased 13-fold in the past decade, yet still only provides 2.3 percent of the country’s electricity — compared to just under 50 percent provided by burning coal. Even Denmark, which has done more than any other country to boost wind power, struggles to integrate an intermittent generating resource into a grid whose customers expect the lights or the television to come on whenever they flick the switch.
As the world attempts to wean itself from fossil fuels — a result of the converging desires to combat climate change, improve energy security, and create green jobs — renewables such as the sun, wind, water, and hot rocks will play a larger role. So will energy sources, such as nuclear and natural gas, that are cleaner than the current favorites, coal and oil. The question is: Can any of these resources — or even all of them put together — begin to approach the scale needed to transform the world’s energy supply?
And even if the world’s economies can muster the resources and willpower to wean themselves off fossil fuels, how many decades will it take? And can we move fast enough to stave off the potentially calamitous effects of climate change?
Read the rest on Yale e360.
One thought on “The Problem of Scale”
Dear David Biello,
Adveranda.com is a newly established website, concerned in raising the awareness about the environmental issues, and creating the atmosphere for the people to think environmentally. Being under one roof, all these issues are open to experts to put their visions and opinions to deliver the right message to people all around the world, a message that would educate and give an idea how huge the environmental issues effect on our lives, children and future would be. Hence, we decided right from the beginning to give the word in our site for the researchers (university faculties, grad students, activists and professionals).
Different means are needed to solve environmental issues. Well, our approach is to educate ordinary people and raise their level of awareness towards these issues, believing that this is the strongest weapon against the environmental violations (power of the crowd).
Now the question is, what can we do? Well, in Adveranda you can contribute in different manners, but the main 2 ways are,
1) Upload articles, videos or projects (on going) about anything that would lead to raise the level of consciousness. Try it, it is really easy and you can upload as much as you want. It will take less 24 hours to appear on the site
2) Invite friends, members or researchers, for that you can use our email importer which is secure and easy, or send them email directly from your email client. More people means, closer we are to a better environment.
Comments are closed.