While reading the New Scientist I noticed an article called the Top 7 alternative energies listed.
A list of the top seven? Not ten (metric) or twelve (imperial), but seven? I’m already dubious.
The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres – in theory, at least. That’s the conclusion of a detailed study ranking 11 types of non-fossil fuels according to their total ecological footprint and their benefit to human health.
The study, carried out by Mark Jacobson of the atmosphere and energy programme at Stanford University, found wind power to be by far the most desirable source of energy. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came right at the bottom of the list, along with nuclear power and “clean” coal.
Does this study really account for the technology changes that are anticipated? Is it a futurist view, or an argument for what the US should be using today if the Bush administration eight years ago somehow had decided to improve national security instead of betting the future on oil companies and SUVs.
To compare the fuels, Jacobson calculated the impacts each would have if it alone powered the entire US fleet of cars and trucks.
It sounds so easy!
He considered not just the quantities of greenhouse gases that would be emitted, but also the impact the fuels would have on the ecosystem – taking up land and polluting water, for instance. Also considered were the fuel’s impact on pollution and therefore human health, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form’s reliability.
I agree with all that, and I really like this part:
“The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most,” says Jacobson.
“Some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” he says. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply, and land use than current fossil fuels.”
Yup, ethanol fuel is only driven by the corn lobby/industry. It’s the same as corn syrup. Even though it is clearly bad for health, bad for productivity, and therefore bad for national security, the cost savings that get converted into lobby dollars are somehow able to get America hooked on the stuff.
I don’t see any mention of algae-based biodiesel, or the new forms of biodiesel conversion that use no ethanol…but I guess this study is handicapped by the fact that there are few diesel passenger vehicles on the road today. So it has an assumption that I would challenge.
