Who: Ray Kurzweil, speaking to Lauren Feeney of the online environmental magazine “Grist” in February.
Why Great: At present, solar provides less than 1% of U.S. energy needs, despite it’s obvious merits over fossil fuels, nuclear power, and especially coal.
BUT… No matter how it’s designed, no more than 70% of the sunlight that strikes a solar panel can be converted into energy, thanks to those pesky laws of thermodynamics. Also assuming that the U.S. coal lobby still has money in five years, we’ll still be using plenty of black rocks.
Bottom Line: You don’t need a nano-engineered solar panel to ask your local utility how much of their energy comes from solar.
Who: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation released in May.
Why Great: The most credible body in climate science is sending a clear message to policymakers: renewables can work, here’s how!
BUT… The plan is contingent on policy-makers taking action on climate change, which could mean voting against the interests of labor and big business. Good luck.
What to do about it: Check out the report. Cite the stats in your windfarm business plan. Get a bank loan. Start a company. Get rich and save the planet at the same time.
Source: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report
Who: 72 internationally recognized experts brought together for a workshop organized by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), results summarized in Foundations for Innovation: Photovoltaic Technologies for the 21st Century, released in April 2011.
Why Great: This is a conservative estimate; by comparison, the current generating capacity of the world’s nuclear power plants is estimated at 377 GW. Photovoltaics represents a major growth area because it could potentially produce cleaner energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
BUT… It’s an expensive alternative to other energy technologies.
Bottom Line: The challenges are to improve the engineering and design of solar cells and enhance their longevity and performance. But it’s not just a science and technology issue; the workshop participants also note the challenges of tax and regulatory policies. The United States currently has 8% of the world’s share of photovoltaics manufacturing, but this could double with technological advances.
Source: NIST, http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/solar-042611.cfm
Who: Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric speaking to Bloomberg Business News on May 28th.
Why it’s great: Little is putting his money where his mouth his. GE is opening a new solar thin film plant in 2013.
BUT… Right now, GE’s thin film panels have an efficiency of just 12% (meaning they can convert only 12% of the light that hits them into energy.
Bottom Line: In the words of Little, “If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home.”
Who: Gerhard Knies, chairman of the board of trustees, Desertec Foundation
Background: Conceived a quarter century ago, the North African solar project is a plan to erect a network of solar plants across Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, and Egypt, with a grid of high-voltage transmission lines that would deliver the electricity to Europe.
Why Great: According to proponents of Desertec, the controversial mega-project not only would help Europe increase its use of renewable energy (its target is 20% by 2020), but it would also create jobs and economic development in a region that sorely needs it.
BUT… Skeptics see the Desertec as yet another way for developed countries to co-opt the resources of less-developed regions. Though investment would boost the economies these North African countries, it would also increase energy demand domestically.
Bottom Line: Desertec has support from the World Bank, but like many grand visions for solving cross-border problems, time is needed as much to build trust among all interested parties as to build the project itself.
Who: Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College
Why It Is Great: Given the size of China, Germany, and Japan’s economies, if all three countries substantially increase their fossil-fuel consumption, the whole world will feel the pinch. This is especially so when the whole world is suffering higher oil prices than ever already. Further price hikes, related slowdowns in economic activity globally, and — of course — more smog and greenhouse gas emissions are all likely to follow.
BUT… Few buts, in this case. Klare’s logic is hard to dispute. Solar and wind technologies are certainly improving, to the point that the German government promises to replace all its nuclear power with wind and solar power by 2030. But that is 20 years from now, and in the meantime, these alternative systems are nowhere near ready to take up lion’s share of national energy production.
Bottom Line: In worldwide energy markets, as in any other area of life, every action — i.e., the Fukushima nuclear disaster — does indeed have an equal and opposite reaction.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/world/151201/3_massive_world_events_that_will_change_your_life?page=2