Sentient Times June/July 06

Wind and solar power are the fastest growing electricity sources. NASDAQ just launched a clean energy index. Leading venture capitalists are making big bets on low-carbon energy sources. Auto dealers are carrying more hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles. Forward-looking communities are planning a future around people instead of cars. Farmers, entrepreneurs, investors—they’re all planting seeds for a cleaner, more secure energy future.

But they’re going too slow. Promising solutions are emerging, but our addiction to fossil fuels is getting worse and it’s killing us. War, climate disruption and economic inse-curity are among its symp-toms.

Now that we can see real pictures of the post-fossil fuel future—since it seems so tantalizingly possible—what can we do to accelerate it?

We can start by squaring up to a simple truth, fossil fuels are very costly. We pay some of the tab at the pump and in our utility bills. But we pay much more in the form of chronic national insecurity due to dependence on oil. We pay in the form of climate disruption—more intense storms, water shortages, ocean sterilization. We pay through the nose, through our lungs and through our declining standing in the world.

The price of oil may cycle down again—after all, suppliers don’t want to price us out of our addiction. “Peak oil ” may be more like a long ridge, with lots of price volatility to keep us guessing. The people who have the most control of oil prices also have the greatest incentive to discourage investment in alternatives—so don’t expect a smooth ride up the price curve. But when the price drops, it’s lying.

No matter how energy prices spike or plunge, fossil fuels are exorbitantly expensive. Their impact on our climate alone is an epic heist of the planet’s wealth—a hocking of our worldly treasure for a few decades’ fix. The geopolitical costs of fossil fuel addiction are literally bleeding us. Whatever is driving oil prices—greed, economics, supply disruption, all of the above—the rising price at the pump is finally communicating some fraction of the truth: fossil fuels are a colossal rip-off.

This truth can set us free. High, truthful fossil fuel prices send a signal to consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs, stop pouring more money into the fossil fuel hole. Put it into things that won’t run out—like the sun and the wind and more efficient vehicles and buildings. Put it into transportation choices. Put it into our endless capacity to innovate.

President Bush flirted with the truth when he said we’re addicted to oil. But now he proposes to treat our addiction by expanding supply! Democrats have suggested price controls and suspending fuel taxes. Political consultants in both parties feed our leaders the same advice: people don’t want to hear the truth of costly fossil fuels. Tell them anything, but not the truth.

One enterprising e-mail campaign proposes that consumers boycott Exxon-Mobil. The theory is that if we don’t buy from Exxon, they’ll have to lower prices, touching off a price war. An economist quoted on NPR says it won’t work. The announcer asked, “Well, what can consumers do about gas prices?” The economist responded, “Drive less.”

Won’t the truth of high fossil fuel prices fall hardest on those who can least afford it? Yes. That’s why we should invest in alternatives that are practical and affordable for everyone. The people who can’t afford $3 gas are the same people who pay in blood to defend our access to the next fix. They’re the ones who can’t move to higher ground when the water rises. If there’s one thing they can’t afford more than the truth, it’s our failure to confront the lie of “cheap” fossil fuels.

We can do something about high fuel prices. We can buy less. We can drive efficient cars and trucks. We can use biofuels—not a free lunch, but an increasingly attractive alternative to petroleum (especially with the commercialization of “cellulosic” ethanol, made from plant waste instead of corn). We can build communities where people can live, work, shop, and go to school by bike, public transit, or foot. We can build a prosperity that is less about simply producing more and more about community, health and quality of life—which are inversely related to fossil fuel consumption.

Fossil fuels don’t just power our cars—they power the production and transportation of every material good. As consumers, we can decide that being consumers isn’t our defining affiliation. We can disenthrall ourselves from Madison Avenue’s formulas for profligate consumption—virility is not a function of horsepower, freedom is not driving alone, fun is not proportional to buying stuff.

As citizens, we can elect leaders who tell us the truth. It’s hard to overemphasize how critical this is. We can’t make a rapid, systemic transition to a clean energy economy at the scale and pace we need as individual consumers. That requires collective purpose and action. It requires a bold, sweeping new policy framework that rises to the scale of the challenge. That framework should include binding limits on global warming pollution, efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances, and renewable energy content requirements for fuels and power—clear, results-oriented policies that send a clear signal for accelerated investment in solutions.

A transition of this scale also requires leaders who can muster the moral authority to call us to a difficult and exciting and absolutely necessary challenge—a challenge that will define our generation in the eyes of our kids and grandkids.

We can keep accepting the lies that sustain our addiction. Or we can hear the truth in high gas prices—and build our future on it.

K.C. Golden is the policy director of Climate Solutions, which is devoted towards working for practical solutions to global warming and a new, sustainable prosperity. From TomPaine.com, May 22, 2006.

Print Friendly Version

Solar Energy In The News

Last April, on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev urged the world’s biggest industrialized nations to set up a 50 billion dollar fund to support solar power. Gorbachev, chairman of the environmental think tank Green Cross International, stated that oil or nuclear energy were not viable energy sources for the future and said it is up to the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States) to choose to invest in renewable energy sources.

Gorbachev said “This idea reflects our vision of a way of helping the energy-impoverished in the developing world, while creating concentrations of solar energy in cities that could be used to prevent blackouts.”

He went on to say solar energy would “lower electricity bills and provide a source in the future for generating renewable hydrogen fuels … The fund could easily be raised by cutting subsidies for fossil fuels like oil and coal.”

Rising oil prices and dwindling petroleum reserves, in addition to the speed with which global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions appears to be affecting the planet, have some policy makers looking to nuclear power as a source of energy. But because nuclear technology requires very large amounts of initial capital, and decommissioning plants is extremely expensive and continues to be so for many years after a nuclear plant closes, Gorbachev said nuclear power “doesn’t add up economically, environmentally or socially … Nuclear power is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea for climate change challenges.”

Between 1947 and 1999 the US government provided 115 billion dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power plants. An additional 145 billion dollars in indirect subsidies were also given. These sums are far greater than those spent on solar or wind power.

• • • • •

Over the next two years 450 new homes with integrated photovoltaic systems and upgraded energy efficiency mea-sures will be built in Roseville, California. The PowerLight SunTile™ solar electric system, a roof-integrated technology, will be installed as a standard feature on each home. And in Brockton, Massachusetts, the first all-solar, new condominium construction project in New England will soon begin. Each of the townhouses at Johnson Square Village will have its own designated photovoltaic solar systems that will feature an 18-panel, 3.24 kilowatt (kW) solar array to power appliances, computers, TVs and other electronics. The systems are expected to generate 4,212 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. Output on each home will provide more than 60 percent of the home’s electrical usage.

• • • • •

A new type of photovoltaic module that uses transparent holographic optical elements in its design may soon be available. Although it cannot concentrate as much sunlight as traditional lens-based concentrators, it’s much more compact and directs useful wavelengths towards the solar cells that would otherwise just generate heat. Because it is a new use of existing technology it may come to market quickly with few problems. The proof-of-concept solar module that Prism Solar Technologies (www.prismsolar.com) has developed may cut the cost of solar modules by as much as 75 percent, which would make them competitive with electricity generated from coal and other fossil fuels. The new panels replace current, less compact concentrators with flat panels laminated with holograms which can be installed on rooftops or incorporated into windows and glass doors. The system requires up to 85 percent less silicon than a crystalline silicon panel of comparable wattage because the photovoltaic material is arranged in several rows rather than covering the entire surface. A layer of laser-created patterns that diffract light (holograms) directs light into a layer of glass where it continues to reflect. The reduced cost for material needed could come down from $4 per watt to $1.50 for crystalline silicon panels.