As a resident of the "Great Pacific Northwest" it is easy to see that I and my neighbors are proud of our "environmental awareness." We originally showed pride in our hydroelectric facilities, as they are less polluting than the main stream coal and gas fueled facilities. Unfortunately, we now know that these hydroelectric dams are very detrimental to aquatic wildlife and habitat. Our famous northwest salmon are in danger because of these structures, and by losing our salmon we lose a part of ourselves.
Today, the establishment of new hydroelectric dams is nearly impossible, while the demand for energy is steadily and ominously increasing. There is almost a sense of urgency and panic as we face energy deficient futures and pressure to remove the dams.
The first alternative that comes to mind is the main stream: coal and gas. Much of our energy comes from these sources already. But we, as Pacific Northwest residents, do not want to see our skies turn grey and water turn murky, who would? And so there is only one other path, one that is renewable.
In the gorge of the Columbia River wind farms are sprouting up like corn in the Midwest. Geothermal in the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington are becoming ever more popular and refined. Even the developing wave/tidal energy is being researched here at my university, Oregon State University, to harvest energy from the sea.
Why, then, are we so concerned? It is because these sources of energy cost significantly more than traditional main stream sources such as coal. Plain and simple the number one reason why not to use these renewable energy sources is because of the price. Consumers want inexpensive energy.
This is where I make my case. When talking in terms of how economical renewable energy is, I find it ever more difficult to draw any specific conclusion and nearly impossible to come up with a dollar value. This is because we are dealing with the environment and Mother Nature does not obey us or our ridiculous rules of currency. Consider the affects of non-renewable energy over renewable energy. There are two main subjects which must be considered: sustainability and ecological affect.
Renewable simply means sustainable or inexhaustible; it does not end. When we use non-renewable resources, we are allowing the hour-glass of sand to slowly, or not so slowly, slip away; only in this case you cannot turn it over again. When the sand runs out there isn't any more, none for our children or our children's children. What a wonderful legacy to leave behind, is it not? Do not fool yourself; it would be in the best interest of mankind to leave what is limited at rest. Even if we were a heartless society, any intelligent person could tell that there will not be enough forever, and that we may not have enough for our own existence. Ask yourself, how economical is that? I would conclude that anything which no longer exists cannot be considered economical at the very least.
There is a concept that is well known in the sustainability community and that is the sustainability triangle. There are three parts to the triangle: economical, social, and ecological. For any act to be considered sustainable it must be fitting in each of these parts.
Image taken from http://www.ladstudios.com/LADsites/Sustainability/ExecutiveSummary.shtml
No action that encompasses any less than all three parts of the triangle will eventually cease to exist for lack of sustainability. Let us take wind energy for example:
•Is is socially responsible?
Yes. No people are wrongfully abused, harmed, or discriminated against with wind energy. Although some complain of the aesthetic pollution wind energy causes, it is generally considered acceptable, especially with regards to the benefits wind energy provides.
•Is it environmentally sound?
Yes. Some negative affects occur, as some birds are injured or killed from wind turbines, and some erosion occurs from the construction of wind turbines, however these affects are minuscule compared to other forms of energy.
•Is it economically prosperous?
Yes. Until recently it has been difficult to be profitable but now wind energy has the potential to be profitable. This is partly due to the large populations of consumers willing to pay higher energy prices to help the environment.
From looking at these parts one can easily conclude that wind energy is in fact sustainable. Looking deeper we can analyze that if wind energy was missing one part, let us say environmental stewardship for example, then eventually it would no longer be economical because we rely on the environment to live in. If our actions, wind energy, creates a world we can no longer live in because it is so environmentally poor then once again I ask: how can that be economical? It cannot.
In summary, we need energy to survive and know that our energy demands are increasing. This presents a problem as our traditional source of energy is non-renewable and therefore will not last forever. Also, if our actions are harming any part of the sustainable triangle then we too are also non renewable and soon to be threatened by extinction. It is by default, without using any numbers, data, or dollars that we can deduce our only true economical choice is through use of renewable energy. Thank you.
Garrett Duyck
Subscribe to