Why would anyone read a novices view on anything? If life has taught me anything, it’s that experts can often become blind to possibilities. At some point, financial security overrides reason and debate. So seems the world of Energy policy (more on this later).
As I sat in my living room one extremely windy afternoon the aggravation of wondering if my house was going to blow down turned to an alternative thought. What if rather than sitting here complaining about the “damn wind” I actually used it to my advantage? A couple of keystrokes later I was reading up on a residential wind generation solution from a company called Urban Green Energy. The company, formed by a BC native living in New York, designs and manufactures residential wind generation solutions. They are one of many companies in the “green” energy industry but somewhat unique in that their wind turbine is aesthetically pleasing and quiet. These are distinctions of importance because much of the issue around wind generation is “its ugly” and/or “its noisy”. There are a variety of solution options available depending upon how much energy you would like to generate.
This investigation lead me to look further into how much energy I consumed each year, what the costs were, and how long it would take to pay off a system with the energy cost savings. In addition, I inquired into whether there were any grant programs for subsidizing the initial setup costs and if I could sell excess energy back to the grid. The answers were yes, you can sell back (in Saskatchewan) and maybe the costs could be subsidized should the Saskatchewan Research Council bring back the Net Metering Program. At this point I’m still investigating options but it appears that if I wish to replace most or all of my electricity requirements for the home it will be at an unsubsidized cost of $30,000. WOW, being green and environmentally conscious has a price tag; go figure.
However, there is more to this than meets the eye which got me thinking about alternative energy policy. In reading Nicholas Carr’s book, The Big Switch: Rewiring the world, from Edison to Google, it was clear that in order for the industrial age to advance civilization to today’s state a massive new and more efficient way of generating power was required. Edison’s inventions, from light bulbs to mass electrical generation, has had a massive lasting effect on our modern society. There is a caveat; no consideration was given to the finite availability of resources to power these centralized generation stations. While “the grid”, along with potable water, has likely extended human life more than any technological advancement to date, it is a finite solution in its current state. “So what” you say. “It will outlive me!” Imagine if this is how Edison thought about the water wheel.
So what are we to do. Many sides to the debate while angry supporters of fossil fuels continue to deride environmentalists and vice versa. Professor Michio Kaku has theorized that there are 3 types of civilizations in the universe based on the type of energy consumption (yes folks, this is science).
- Harnesses the planetary power (tides, sun, wind, etc)
- Harnesses the power of their neighbouring star (solar winds, bursts, etc)
- Harnesses the power of many stars at a galactic scale
Currently, we are type 0: fossil fuels. If our civilization is to survive we must move away from fossil fuels and move into type 1 civilization; harnessing the power of the Earth. Depending on your perspective these are exciting times. We have the potential to move to the next level just as civilization did in the late 1800’s. It looks like Saskatchewan supports this move. I understand there are likely few people that would either be able or willing to spend $20,000 – $30,000 on alternative energy but to the few that are thank you. You are the true leaders of civilization. For those special interests that hang onto 200 year old technology because you think its good for jobs that is your prerogative. Forgive me if I can’t help thinking of you as “fossils”.
I can’t promise I will make the investment; I too may remain a fossil. However, it is this move away from fossil fuels that, 100 years from now, make the rest of us look rather "fossilish".
Comments