38


mix would rise from 81 percent in 2005 to 82 percent by 2030.


WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?


So if the future for fossil fuels is finite but by no means short-lived, how and when will renewables be developed to the point where they can take the place of oil, coal, and gas? The simple answer is nobody knows, but some analysts believe solutions will come from outside the exist- ing energy sector, perhaps from nanotech or biosciences. Factors that will no doubt have a bearing on when solutions are found are the pace of climate change and the future availability of oil and gas.


an all-hands-on-deck effort from America: effort from our scientists and entrepreneurs, from businesses, and from every American


“ citizen. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydropow- ”


er, tidal, and biomass power are plentiful. According to a 2009 report from the Na- tional Research Council, existing renew- able technologies could easily supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2035, with the right policies and investments. Cali- fornia, through its Global Warming Solu- tions Act of 2006 (AB 32), has already set an achievable target of 20 percent renew- able power by 2020, which is spurring green investment and innovation across the state. Nationwide, to reach 50 percent renewable power and beyond would re- quire deep investment, new technology


17.5


Energy produced from food sources seems less appealing in times of soaring food prices.


17.5 - Canola is one of many feedstocks that can be used to produce biodiesel.


– PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA


encourage the building of new nuclear reactors to replace the first generation of nuclear plants that are coming to the end of their working lives. However, although the nuclear re-


vival is in full swing, it is not that simple. There are several problems and unan- swered questions about the technology. These include the question of radioac- tive waste and how to dispose of it safely, and whether there are enough nuclear scientists and skilled engineers to work on all of the nuclear projects planned. Because the first generation plants were built many years ago and then the


breakthroughs (such as energy storage technologies), and fundamental changes in the power-generating industry. What about that other piece in the en-


ergy jigsaw: nuclear power? Once almost totally discredited on safety grounds, it is now held up by some as the solution to all the world’s energy problems. Sources of uranium are plentiful and, from a supply security point of view, are spread evenly around the world. It is also a green fuel in that CO2


emissions are negligible. Many governments have now set


themselves targets for cutting carbon emissions, and some see the replace- ment of fossil fuel-burning power sta- tions with nuclear reactors. Nearly all developed nations have plans to build or


Energy independence will require


technology fell out of favor, the required skills are not readily available. Many nu- clear scientists, executives, and inspec- tors are reaching retirement age. Some countries, such as France, maintained their investment in the sector and have retained the skills and expertise. Oth- ers, like the UK, did not. This factor could hold back new nuclear projects. The top talent in the nuclear indus-


try is likely to be attracted to projects in China and the Middle East, which are progressing quickly, leaving projects in Eu- rope and North America in the lurch. There is also a view that it will take


some time to reverse the perception that nu- clear is a “twilight industry” and for it to start attracting new graduates into the business. Partnerships between the nuclear industry and universities in the U.S., for example, are expected to bear fruit in 5-10 years.


THE NUCLEAR COST


Perhaps a more fundamental problem for the nuclear industry is the issue of cost. In nuclear power’s early days, it was thought that electricity would be gener- ated so cheaply it could almost be given away free of charge, but in the decades that followed, many nuclear power plant projects missed deadlines and ran over budget. Frequent changes to reactor technology meant that there was only a very shallow pool of expertise and spare par ts to draw on when plants broke down, leading to lengthy periods when power was not being generated. In the past, nuclear power has been


more expensive than power generated from gas-, oil-, or coal-fired plants when measured over the life of the plant, but as fossil fuel costs have risen in recent years, nuclear energy has started to look more commercially viable. The cost of solar and wind power has also fallen dramatically. The debates on our energy future will


continue to be fierce, and a diversity of solu- tions will remain in the mix. Rising energy costs and the threat of climate change will continue to spur innovation and drive en- ergy policy in the coming decades. PE


MALCOLM MAITLAND is a freelance writer and commentator on environmental issues.


PLANET EARTH \\ ENERGY REVOLUTION


THIS PAGE: FRANK VINCENTZ; OPPOSITE: ISTOCKPHOTO


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68