According to Wikipedia, “Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.”
It is hard to see why geothermal heat should be classified as renewable, since it is not replenished. In fact, sunlight, wind, tides, and waves stem from the sun’s energy, which also is not replenished. Yet these energy sources are useful, partly because they will be around for a long time.
Is the attractiveness of “renewable energy” based on whether they are truly renewable? Evidently not. And why the “replenished on a human timescale”?
Probably, the real reason why renewable energy is attractive is because it is not associated with greenhouse gas emissions, hence appeals to those concerned about climate.
If it is climate that is of concern, why not consider wood as a source of renewable energy? Growing a tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning the wood restores it. There is no net increase in CO2 over the grow-burn cycle. Sunlight drives this cycle. Wood is just as much renewable energy as “renewable energy”.
And to get back to the why the “replenished on a human timescale” issue – does it refer to a single human lifetime, several, or what? Why not focus on energy sources that do not increase CO2, net?
Fossil fuels are like wood, they are just as much renewable energy as all these other energy sources. The only difference is that you don’t burn the wood at once – you wait until it turns into coal or oil. Only the timescale is different. Fossil fuels represent just as much a zero net CO2 increase as “renewable energy” – the only difference being that their one-time cycle has not been completed. So, what’s the big deal about fossil fuels?
A little more careful thinking and less alarmism, please.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
No comments:
Post a Comment