The thought-provoking periodical for thinking idiots
Sustainability Sucks!
Why sustainable energy isn't, and how it could be...
Sustainable energy, that good old free lunch, may be about to explode its own myth.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch (or a free lux), and the current planning process behind introduction of wind, tidal, hydroelectric and solar energies is deeply, fatally flawed.
CLEAN POWER SUCKS!
Energy generated by a wind farm may be ultimately far more costly to Earth's ecosystem than currently perceived. Solar 'farms' are not farms at all, but vast energy sponges that mop up sunlight as it spills aimlessly over Earth's surface. That seemingly trivial 'overspill', appearing to provide free energy, is somewhat more important in the bigger scheme than appearances suggest.
Electricity is generated on solar farms by absorption of sunlight energy by photoelectric panels. When this is small scale and localised it is unproblematic, other than the lowered oxygen production caused by replacing green plants with inorganic solar panels. But scaled up to the new breed of farms now under construction across swathes of moorland and heath in warmer parts of England and the wider world, their effect multiplies. The heat energy absorbed by such farms would otherwise have been absorbed into the earth beneath. The natural heatsink beneath such farms can easily lose as much as 82% of its energy input (1) and the resultant 'cold patches' in earth's crust could have serious, unforeseen effects.
One possible long-term effect is shrinkage in the cooling rockbed beneath the farm, to the extent that cracks and fissures appear. This, in turn, creates deeper and faster drainage (a deeper, more efficient heatsink, if you like). Now, when it rains, water does not just leach into the topsoil and sub-soil. It drains beneath into the rockbed, which is cooled further still. Simultaneously, heat from magma below creates expansion in the lower surfaces of the rockbed. Just like a bi-metal strip in a thermomstat, this expansion and contraction causes flexing in the rock, ultimately leading to more damage, extending those cracks and fissures. The water then penetrates and cools the rockbed further, creating more and wider crevices and flow routes. Given time, the geological changes deep within the crust can dramatically alter its structure and stability, with the ultimate effect that previously secure and permanent rock beds may become unpredictable, with features such as earthquakes, geysers and even eruptions becoming increasingly common.
In the shorter-term this deep drainage affects the condition of the topsoil. When water is drained below the soil layers they become dessicated, and the potential outcome is dust bowls. In combination with the third and much more immediate effect, this can be deadly.
Cooled land surfaces cause changes in adjacent areas of atmospheric pressure. In the case of a solar farm of just a few acres, this is a relatively localised effect, most likely causing an area of updraft that might be used by birds to gain altitude. Above larger scale farms, however, these changes in pressure can lead to changes in weather. Over hundreds of acres it is possible for the temperature difference to create a weather front. This can manifest as high winds, storms, even tornadoes. In areas of prevalently temperate conditions, these changes may cause irregular weather patterns and potentially extreme conditions. Solar farms are, theoretically, 'weather plants' where the land has become dry and dusty due to the effects of deep drainage, and increasingly powerful winds generate vast clouds of powder-dry soil dust that can block the sun over immense acreage. The long-term effect of these conditions has been seen before in huge areas of the southern states of America: dead land, extreme storms and destitution, where no normal vegetation grows. In the 1930s the primary cause was wheat plantation (2). Could the 2030s lead again to such catastrophe because of unrestricted solar farm development? It's not unimaginable and, if it does, the original motivation (to create 'sustainable' energy) no longer even works as solar farms are obscured by dust clouds. Once this stage is reached there is little chance of short-term recovery and, if the plans to extend solar 'farms' keep pace with population growth and ever-increasing energy demands, it is possible that whole swathes of fertile land will be transformed into barren wastelands.
And what of wind? Can gentle-giant mills stand proud in the landscape, charming power from the breeze in a post-modern re-enactment of pre-industrial innocence? Their near neighbours may complain of noisy turbines and massive, swooping blades but, surely, these most simplistic of machines could not be leading Earth to doom?
Again, the problem is negligible at small scales: individual turbines scarcely capture whispers of the wind. But the largest absorb up to 300MWh of energy from the airstream and, planted out in regimented rows of hundreds, even thousands, localised wind energy will undoubtedly be altered. In 2010, UK electricity demand was nearly 400TWh. This would require almost 50,000 turbines (today there are 4160, less than 10% of the required number). As much as 59% (3) of the original energy in airstreams can be removed and converted into electricity across the total blade diameter by wind farm. The results of this could be catastrophic. Wind is caused by areas of differing atmospheric pressure, itself caused by variation in the heating of land areas by the sun. If energy is removed from the airstream, pressure equalisation in these areas is affected. Winds change as a result of this and, given a large enough area, the impact is significant, with altered patterns re-wiring national weather conditions. The impact of this relatively local alteration on global weather patterns is less predictable, but likely to be significant. As we have seen in recent years, changes to the direction and intensity of jet stream winds have resulted in flooding, crop failure, impact on travel, alteration to habitats, extinction of some species and increased risks of disease in humans (due to warm and damp conditions) in the UK.
The concept of tidal/wave energy is equally flawed. The more energy is removed from the tide, the lower it will reach upon the shore. First effects are minimal (to humans) with, perhaps, some loss of some tidal habitats. As the effects increase due to scaling, so the cyclic flows of oceans may be influenced. Any species that navigates by or synchronises behaviour with tidal patterns will be disturbed, their changes in behaviour ending, at worst, with extinctions. More importantly, the Gulf Stream and other ocean flows that are crucial to the longer-term consistency of global weather may be affected. National and global weather patterns may change and the world’s weather will be altered, with potentially catastrophic effects.
So, is the answer to place individual energy converters at every home? There are certainly advantages, in that the energy can be stored locally and used locally with none of the inefficiencies of transporting electricity across great distances. Unfortunately, the small-scale systems used to convert energy on this basis are inefficient in themselves (as low as 30%, with even large scale commercial systems shown to be unable to exceed 59% efficiency (4)). The other major drawback is that this does nothing to alleviate the problems already discussed. Energy absorbed from our ecosystem affects it at a local level. Imagine the whole of a large city drawing energy off the wind, the sun, the rivers and rain. The effects over such an area would be just as detrimental to the underlying land and weather systems. An analogy can be drawn with the existing problem with rainwater run-off resulting in flooding in areas of London. The cause: large numbers of homeowners paving or concreting front gardens to create their own off road parking space (5).
So, what is there to do? The use of fossil fuels clearly impacts upon the atmosphere, and nuclear fuels are considered hazardous and unpredictable. Perhaps an answer may be found in removing the mechanism for generating power from the ecosystem, planet Earth's beautifully balanced global ecology. Place any system that transfers energy within Earth's sphere of influence, and its reciprocation on the Earth will always be unkind.
If this is right, one suggestion is for a series of solar energy receptors to be placed in space, always turned toward the Sun and using microwave or other radio technology to deliver energy to Earth. The source of this energy is outside of the ecosystem so its generation impacts minimally. However, the impact of such external energy input into Earth’s ecosystem is worrying, suggesting longer-term temperature increases and additional global warming as more and more energy is trapped within the atmosphere. It would necessitate a heat-exhaust system, and the design of such a system would be, at the very least, challenging.
We think the answer to the current problem may be in local planning. A meticulously planned integration of sustainable energy systems could be designed to impact positively on weather systems. If we envision the world as one huge energy/weather machine, and include weather systems as a contributory part of the energy cycle, we can envisage absorption of energy types from where they are least useful (for example, heat energy from equatorial deserts) and transfer energy (for example, electricity) to where it is needed most. The impact of absorbing heat energy within areas of desert is, potentially, positive, perhaps creating new areas of land available for cultivation and inhabitation. It is by no means a complete solution as the wider, global effects are yet to be modelled. This approach is, at least, strategic. Its outcomes would be based on computer algorithms that predict the consequences. The current piecemeal, localised approach, that focuses on financial benefit for local authorities and individuals, is woefully inadequate.
There are no simple answers. The dark side of sustainable energy must be recognised and debated. It is simply not safe to continue to hope that we can get something for nothing out of the planet we inhabit. We cannot take for granted the remarkable power of the Earth and its incredible ability to recover and spring back from our abuse. Serious thought must be applied to the generation of renewable energy before the level of investment reaches levels, comparable to the current state of play with the internal combustion engine, that result in continuation of damaging effects because the financial cost of change is prohibitive.
NOTES
1 source: solarcellcentral
2 source: history.com
2 source: ftexploring
3 source: ftexploring
4 source: RHS