Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke
This week I received the alumni magazine from my undergraduate alma mater – Denison University, located in the village of Granville, Ohio. It had an interesting article about why energy policy is so complex. Because I've spent most of my professional career examining the intricacies of the energy sector I was drawn to the article and in particular the 3rd part of it. This part posed the following statement, "The sun can save us," that readers are asked to vote whether it's true or false. The statement and the answer are provided by Joe Reczek, a chemistry professor at Denison. Here it is.
Unequivocally true says Joe Reczek, a self-proclaimed idealist whose research focuses on harnessing solar energy. Many energy sources can be billed as "clean" – wind, water, geothermal power – but the answer to our prayers, says Reczek, is the sun. "All other things are a distraction," he says. Of course, we'll use energy to produce the materials needed to harness the sun's energy, but hat energy is paid back in a real hurry. "The energy used to make solar panels is recouped in two to three years," says Reczek, "and then all the energy gained is truly "green.'" And the technology keeps getting better. Right now, most solar panels are based on inorganic silicone technologies, but innovations like organic thin film and nanostructure metal oxides are up-and-coming in the world or solar energy and won't require the purity and high heat that silicone requires to make it function properly for solar cells. "The bottom line," says Reczek, "is that the amount of sunlight that strikes the earth in one hour could provide all the energy for the world's population for a year." The power is there; we just have to perfect the science that will make it accessible.
Mr. Reczek raises several interesting points about how we humans can progress without decimating the planet by our continued use of fossil fuels. Although I agree that using more renewable energy sources is essential, I take exception to some of Mr. Reczek's discussion about "how the sun can save us."
I think the more important, broader question is, "How can we save ourselves?" As you'll see below, I firmly believe we can, principally by modifying our behavior, without having to rely solely on future solar energy technologies. Energy technologies alone are not sufficient to "save" us.
First, ALL energy sources that humans have ever used here on Earth are ultimately sun-based. Even the nasty petroleum-, natural gas- and coal-based forms that we have increasingly relied on since the Industrial Revolution, as well as biomass (e.g., wood) sources that have been a far more important source of energy for far longer in human history, start from sun-powered photosynthetic processes. In other words, the sun has been forever "saving us."
Mr. Reczek's statement that after recouping the energy used to make solar panels in 2 to 3 years, the panel-generated energy becomes "truly 'green'" represents a narrow, net-energy based assessment of solar photovoltaic (PV) and thermal power systems. It may be true; but practically speaking, it's not really relevant. Despite what Mr. Reczek states, there are a few "distractions" beyond the sun's rays that must be considered.
Few, if any, solar power system investor/operators (including folks like us who have installed PV and thermal panels on their homes) make their purchase decisions based on net-energy considerations. Most of us take into account the "payback period" (or similar means such as net present value) as the crucial fiscal criterion for deciding whether or not to install solar systems. Like most energy production systems, solar systems require significant up-front investments that provide operating savings over a fairly long period of time. For our home's modest 3kW system, this payback period was about 10 years. In deciding to install solar at our home, people like us are the exception. Based on dated but realistic information, 90% of purchasers of energy systems balk at facing payback periods longer than 3 years, hence the near universal use of fiscal incentives to reduce payback. This payback issue remains a significant problem for any renewable technology-based energy policy that seeks to achieve wide-spread adoption, such as those suggested by Mr. Reczek and other technologists.
So, although I agree that the sun can and has been saving us, I believe we will benefit more cost-effectively by changing our energy-using behavior without needing to place our bets for a greener future solely on new and likely more expensive energy supply technologies.
More advanced solar technologies at some point will hopefully provide increased energy efficiencies for PV and thermal cells. However, the benefits of such technologies must be weighed against broader market realities. These realities encompass far more than the technological developments Mr. Reczek imagines for the future. They include a host of behavioral, economic and financial challenges, as mentioned above, that renewable energy systems have long faced. These challenges are why the market share of renewable energy technologies remains so disappointingly small, despite significant government support. [Although if the myopic Republicans have their way, federal funding of non-fossil energy research is headed for sizeable reductions.] According to a recent National Resources Defense Council study, renewable energy accounts for just 2.7% of US electricity production (solar represents less than 0.1%).
Should we continue to invest in new solar (and other renewable) technologies such as those that Mr. Reczek mentions? Sure. But we don't have to wait to "perfect the science" in order to realize significant green energy savings.
We can save ourselves right away by using existing energy-efficiency (EE) actions to reduce residential energy consumption by nearly 30%, representing up to 11% of total US energy consumption, without waiting for more advanced technologies to enter the market. [See this article for more detailed analysis.] In effect, EE actions produce negative generation – what Amory Lovins has called negawatts. They cut the need for power generation requirements by changing how we demand energy. So-called demand-side management activities that rely on using more energy-efficient appliances and equipment have been successfully saving energy for residential, commercial and industrial customers for decades. These substantial energy savings result from altering our selection and use of contemporary home and business energy equipment and motor vehicle technologies including, upgrading home insulation, using compact fluorescent bulbs, and buying and using more efficient space conditioners, motors, pumps and vehicles.
How large are the green energy savings from EE programs? They can be sizeable. Look at California, a state that has pioneered and promoted the use of EE actions since 1980. The EE programs of the state's 4 largest privately-owned electric and gas utilities produced nearly 6,500 GWh, over 1,100 MW and 84 million therms of annual gross savings from 2006-08. These savings represent 10 times the amount of electricity that was generated in California from solar in 2008. Demand-side EE programs deliver.
Thus, we would do well to expand and strengthen our nation's support for, and participation in, demand-side EE programs. Such savings can be realized today in Granville and everywhere else the sun shines.
