According to professor Mark Z. Jacobson, who teaches civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, solar technology is one of the best ways for America to improve energy security, mitigate climate change and reduce the amount of air pollution linked to disease and death.
Of course, we at Cooler Planet already knew this. What struck us about Jacobson’s study was that it received no funding from any government agency, energy company or public/private interest group. This paradigm of unbiased reporting on alternative energy technologies leads us to conclude that Jacobson’s study is perhaps the only one to come down the pike in a decade that reflects the energy situation in America as it truly is.
This quantitative, scientific study, which appraises proposed solutions not only for their ability to provide energy but also their impacts on climate change, energy security, space requirements, ecological health, water pollution, reliability and sustainability, concludes that the best paths are, by order of preference: wind, concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal power, tidal power, solar photovoltaics (PV), wave power and hydroelectric power.
Jacobson also notes that the energy sources getting the most attention (clean coal, nuclear, bioethanol) are also the ones contributing either the most, or the most dangerous, pollution. The paper, which will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science, notes that putting people to work building solar, wind and geothermal plants would not only create jobs to heal the economy but would reduce health care costs and provide better growing conditions for food crops.
Though Jacobson favors wind, he admits that wind alone isn’t the solution. “It’s got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power.”
President-elect Barack Obama has announced a plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs in the next few years, many of which would come from implementing green technologies. We at Cooler Planet think this is a great idea, but opponents insist the initiative will cost more than it generates in wages or profits.
We at Cooler Planet believe this is misguided thinking – like equating the cost of a loaf of bread to the pound of wheat grown to make it, instead of the life saved by eating it. Sometimes economists get so wrapped up in their cost/benefit analyses they lose sight of the big picture. By the same token, investing heavily in alternative technologies would bring new developments, drive down costs and make it easier for consumers, pinched by the recession, to commit to “green” alternatives.
In addition, using up finite resources to generate energy while neglecting infinite resources like sun and wind may leave us unexpectedly exposed to an energy nightmare if gas and coal reserves are being seriously overestimated, as more and more experts say is happening.
