Dear Mr. Kobus,
I can only assume you are angling to exit your current career in Academia with a preference for the much higher paying jobs available with “big oil”. In general, you’ve made some useful statements regarding current sources of energy for electric and plug-in hybrids, but you have missed several major points:
1. The laws of conservation of mass and energy do not apply to an open system like the planet Earth. It applies to the Universe, assuming (and that is a pretty major assumption, even for someone such as yourself who is not an advanced astrophysicist) that the Universe is a closed system. The Earth, being an open system, can heat up to the very limit of the various elements contained herein. More specifically, you are improperly attempting to apply the aforementioned law of physics. You argued that no matter what way energy is produced, the polluting effects are the same (or worse, you say, for non-fossil fuel based energy production, which, I shall show, is completely absurd). You used “more chemical pollution” “broken windmills” and “shading the ground” as examples of your pollution and environmental damage. I can only assume you are joking when you cite the last two as actual problems that our nation faces. Seriously — it’s funny enough to be worthy of a headline in The Onion.
The ETRC (Extraction, Transport, Refinement, and Combustion) of diesel fuel is only marginally less polluting that regular fuel, if at all. The combustion of diesel fuel creates only 10-20 percent fewer CO2 emissions than that of regular gasoline. On the downside, it yields significant sulfur and NOx emissions, which cause (perhaps the even more environmentally deleterious effects of) acid rain.
2. While is does take energy and causes pollution to build wind turbines and solar arrays, it takes at least as much energy and causes more pollution to build AND FUEL coal and nuclear powered plants. Think of the massive mining operations necessary to extract coal from the Earth. Haven’t you ever seen the mile long trains of coal that arrive DAILY in coal-fired powered plants nationwide? Aside from that, the chemical and radioactive environmental side effects (and possible side effects) from the use of coal and nuclear are far worse than that of solar, wind, and hydroelectric technologies.
3. Heavy metals and Rare Earth minerals are used for making solar panels, however, all of the same pollutants are emitted from coal-fired power plants into the air that we all breathe in even greater quantities when coal is burned. Heavy metals are also released in far greater degrees inot the environment form coal mining. Much of the heavy metals and rare earths pollution that you speak of (from the manufacture of photovoltaics) comes directly from the burning of coal for power plants that provide electricity for the solar cell production facilities! As more power comes from non-coal power plants, the power needed to manufactur photovoltaic equipment further decreases, as do the negative environmental implications of this manufacturing process. I should also add that the rare earths and heavy metals used in industrial and large-scale home-based solar energy production (such as rooftop-mounted solar panels) are almost always recycled or otherwise properly disposed of.
Solar panels using relatively high quantities of heavy metals and rare earth minerals are not the way to go, not because coal is better, but because we have even less polluting and equally efficient renewable solutions. Currently, very low-cost, super-efficient reflective arrays that heat a central small (but highly effective) photovoltaic and/or liquid (such as plain water) to create a pressure differentials sufficient to drive a turbine have already been developed and are in use. As time progresses, more and more coal fired plants will be phased out and more solar and wind energy fields. In all honesty, we do not need any more coal-fired plants — we just need a smarter grid in order for small scale power generating operations to be able to give back to the grid in a more efficient way. We also need to improve power transmission technologies. We have the technology to replace coal with cheaper sources that are more reliable in the long run (due to the fact that the sun and wind will never run out as long as humans exist), and less polluting.
Here’s a quote to get your goat: “One of the most promising photovoltaic technologies is based on cadmium telluride, but cadmium is one of the worst heavy metals. Still, if we compare direct emissions from production of cadmium telluride cells with coal power plants, toxic emissions would be up to 300 times lower.” -Vasilis Fthenakis, an environmental engineer at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y.
Aside from the points you missed, above, I don’t know why you bring up politics in your post. This is not a political argument. Why should this have anything to do with Republican vs Democrat or liberal vs. conservative (or Liberal vs. Conservative)? This is (or should be) a public discussion about the prudent use of available resources in a manner that has the least negative effects on our homes, air, and homeland. What is in our nation’s and citizenry’s greatest interest? I doubt its in our interest to destroy our air and water supply. Which resources can we use that will cause the least amount of harm to ourselves, our friends, and our family? Certainly not coal. I think we agree on that. Oil is not much better. The extraction, transportation, and refinement of oil and the further distribution, storage, and consumption of oil-based fuels (including diesel) has also created huge swaths of unusable/uninhabitable land, water, as witnessed by the recent BP/Transocean oil platform disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, The Exxon Valdez spill, and countless such disasters that have taken place through the world, in between these two events — particularly in Africa but also here in the United States.
As a PhD candidate, I’m sure you understand the value of including, assessing, and adequately devaluing the STRONGEST elements of the other side of any given argument. Failing to do so does a disservice to your own argument and makes you look like a weak thinker — as does making ad-hominem arguments based on the fact that an entire group of (relatively well-educated) individuals support a given solution to a problem. most of those who oppose “liberals” don’t even view pollution (be it carbon emissions or chemical waste) as a problem, it seems inherent to your post that you do — so why side with them? Anyway, whether a person is a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the value of a particular argument. When you fail to assess a particular argument on its own merits, you fail to win your argument. Considering this, I wish you the best of luck to you in your current and future endeavors as a PhD candidate. Clearly, you’ll need all the luck you can get.
