Power Surge-Strategy to Fill the Energy Gap

Watch Power Surge -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m66BDGXZwRo

What does the documentary propose the solution to the energy crisis is?

The documentary insists that the solution to the energy crisis has multiple parts.  All alternative energies; solar, wind, ethanol, etc. should be explored, developed, and implemented.  No single energy solution satisfies the 7 billion tons per year (over 50 years) target lined out by Stephen Pacala. 

During the introduction to the video, they explain that Richard Branson is using his entrepreneurial prowess to promote alternative energy efforts.  The narrator then references scientists developing these solutions in the lab.  I think this is a very important aspect to keep in mind; engineered solutions and financial motivations have to support one another.  They both must contribute to the solution because the business cannot work if the technology fails and the technology will not be employed if it is not profitable.  The exception is of course subsidized technology implementation.

Pacala also mentions emissions reductions as a viable means of reducing the energy problem.  It is important to remember that a simple change in societal attitudes, such as Americans adopting higher fuel efficiency vehicles, can have a large impact on the issue of global warming.  To me this is a much easier to implement solution than developing clean technology itself.  However, carbon dioxide emissions will never be reduced to zero.  This is why the documentary supports a multi-technology solution.

Brazilian Energy Consumption by Source

2.       Do you agree or disagree with their assessment of how to solve the problem?

I strongly agree with their assessment of how to solve the problem.  The energy gap that will be left by fossil fuels will be too large to fill with one solution standing alone.  Also, all of the alternative technologies are still being developed.  To give up on any one solution now would mean foregoing any optimization or cost reduction advancements that would come out of further engineering. 

Each alternative energy method has its own pros and cons.  For example, nuclear energy is functional, but not sustainable.  It can also have horrible effects on the environment if the reactor is damaged by natural disasters.  I think nuclear energy should be reserved for low natural disaster occurrence areas.  It is also important to understand that each region has different potential to employ each strategy.  Biomass is best employed in areas with high agricultural production.  This is because the woody biomass from trees, corn cob, grains, etc. can be transported to the incinerator with low transportation costs.  Only certain areas experience wind speeds that make wind farms worth the cost of construction.  In my opinion, nuclear energy is best employed in regions that rarely experience natural disasters.  To focus on any one method could impede alternative energy progress for certain populations in the world. 

From the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

3        Do they accurately address the effects of the environment, society and economy when they consider what alternative energies to use?

The documentary accurately addresses the different facets of the energy crisis.  Societal, environmental, and economic roadblocks to implementing solution are all explained.  For example, carbon scrubbers could effectively remove carbon dioxide from the air and thus reduce humanity’s carbon footprint.  However, there is no money to be made in carbon scrubbers because there is no end product.  Since there is no economic incentive, carbon scrubbers are not employed on a wide scale.  Similarly, solar panels have high production costs making them a less attractive investment even though they effectively provide energy with little societal or environmental detriments.  Capital investment is also the reason why we cannot easily retrofit transportation vehicles to be green technologies.

Economics is not always the primary downside to an alternative energy technology.  A prime example of this is nuclear facilities.  When engineering systems within nuclear reactors fail, release of harmful radiation can occur.  This is what happened in Fukushima.  With the unpredictability of natural disasters, I personally disagree with strategies focusing on nuclear reactors.  The harmful effects that could be unleashed, especially over the course of several decades or even centuries, is far too concerning. 

I think it is interesting that society is never mentioned in the video as something inhibiting alternative energy technologies.  This is probably because the producers wanted the documentary to remain positive.  However the bottom line is quite simple; alternative energy will not develop if nobody cares about it.  There is an “out of sight, out of mind” sentiment that could prevent the average citizen from caring about climate change and sustainability until it is too late.  One thing I did like about the video however is that Richard Branson was brought in to show his support of alternative energy.  This helps glamorize the movement which can prevent people from seeing it as something just for scientists and engineers to worry about.