Second thoughts on alternative energy

September 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Wind and solar have always seemed like the über energy. Clean, seemingly limitless and potentially cheap—what’s not to like?

Biofuels offer a different, but also powerful appeal. Turn the Midwest, one of the world’s plumpest areas of prime farmland, into a big ethanol and biodiesel factory. Consumers never run out of fuel, new industries are stimulated and farmers make more money, so everyone wins.

Each type has always had its unique drawbacks, but their overall prospects nevertheless seemed reasonably bright.

However, a new study from The Nature Conservancy tempers some of the enthusiasm. If the United States wants to create enough alternative energy to meet the carbon cap-and-trade legislation now before Congress, we’d have to devote an additional 79,500 square miles to the task by 2030. That’s a footprint twice the size of Indiana.

Even if the study exaggerates the impact, it’s still a lot of land.

Most of the space would be allocated to growing crops for biofuels. But some of it also would be pockmarked with wind turbines and paved over with solar collectors.

Delving further into alternative energy is fine and good, the Nature Conservancy says, provided damage to natural habitat is minimized and projects are located on marginal land or brown fields. But the conservation organization emphasizes Americans should make improving efficiency the first priority.

What are your thoughts? Are we leaving efficiency on the sidelines in our enthusiasm for alternative energy?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • farmer joeSeptember 23, 2009 1:19 PM
    The first time something is done is probably the most inefficient way it will ever be done. One day we will be recycling aluminum cans from orbit. But right now the job gets done by bending over and picking them up. Just because its not the most efficient way to do it, doesn't mean its not a job worth doing. This is the first time since the industrial revolution that we are trying to become energy independent using alternative energy. Its not going to be that efficient, but it is a job worth doing. Years from now when they recycle aluminum from orbit they will have much more efficient ways to create alternative energy. Right now the task is in front of us and we should just get doing, and find the efficiencies along the way.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • indymoonSeptember 23, 2009 1:23 PM
    Yes, energy efficiency should be priority one ahead of marginally economic resources (wind and solar). What's the status of the Governor's plan to increase the building code requirements in the state?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BusinessmanSeptember 23, 2009 1:59 PM
    There are several alternatives for energy, among them, nuclear. We, as Americans, seem to fear nuclear energy, while every US Naval Vessel is a floating nuclear power plant. The French generate about 80% of their enery grom nuclear energy, and I would assume that if they are smart enought to do it, we are too. We are too dependent on fossil fuels. The issue of green house gases is the production of carbon dioxide during the burning of fossil fuels. We must develop an alternative energy source that does not produce carbon dioxide as a by product to the production of energy.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • DanSeptember 23, 2009 8:54 PM
    Are the The Nature Conservancy's data based on current levels of consumption and lifestyles? Energy costs will eventually drive people to consumer less and live differently. Alternative energy production will be essential, as will lifestyle changes. The latter will reduce the demand for energy.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

    2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

    3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

    4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

    5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

    ADVERTISEMENT