ENERGY POLICY: Rome wants to implement distributed energy policy
Distributed energy generation is one solution or alternative to big energy’s position that massive quantities of fossil fuels—in addition to nuclear energy—will continue to be a significant contributor to the energy mix of the future even as the Earth’s climate continues to change, ecosystems are altered by pollution (e.g., mercury pollution emitted from coal-fired power plants that is subsequently absorbed within aquatic environments and the food chain), and nonrenewable energy supplies continue to dwindle and become more expensive.
However, modernizing and rethinking how electricity is delivered, in addition to improving energy storage capabilities and promoting energy conservation via green construction or retrofitting for energy conservation will encourage sustainable development via energy conservation. Distributed energy generation, or small producers of energy via renewable resources and even nonrenewable sources, in the aggregate, will benefit people and the environment, because decentralizing energy generation will reduce “the amount of energy lost in transmitting electricity.” More from the Financial Times:
Mr Rifkin, who is also advising the governments of Spain and Greece and acts as an informal consultant for Germany’s Angela Merkel, bases his vision on what he calls the “third industrial revolution” – of a carbon- and nuclear-free future – on a programme of “distributive energy”.
Distributive energy boils down to individual buildings and local cooperatives becoming energy positive, harnessing wind, sun and thermal energy to run themselves and sell surplus power to others via a “smart grid” system.
More on distributed energy from the Department of Energy:
Distributed energy consists of a range of smaller-scale and modular devices designed to provide electricity, and sometimes also thermal energy, in locations close to consumers. They include fossil and renewable energy technologies (e.g., photovoltaic arrays, wind turbines, microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells, combustion turbines, and steam turbines); energy storage devices (e.g., batteries and flywheels); and combined heat and power systems. Distributed energy offers solutions to many of the nation’s most pressing energy and electric power problems, including blackouts and brownouts, energy security concerns, power quality issues, tighter emissions standards, transmission bottlenecks, and the desire for greater control over energy costs.
About the image: According to telex4, the author of the image above, which is posted on Flickr, “BedZED is the UK’s largest eco-village. The aim was to help residents and office workers reduce their ecological and carbon footprints to a sustainable, ‘one planet’ level. The plans cover reducing energy use, providing renewable energy, minimising the embodied energy of the buildings, reducing fossil fuel miles and also tackling food, waste, water usage and flooding.”
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
That’s interesting, but it hasn’t been built yet. Why are so many environmentalists big on plan but small on action?
And also, why the outcry against nuclear energy? It’s a great way to create energy, and we have ways of dealing with the waste in a safe and effective manner. Irradiated food is a way to keep spoilable food fresh for consumers without refrigeration.
Obviously, “it” hasn’t been built yet, and it’s not that environmentalists are big on plan but small on action–it’s the lack of political will and a lack of understanding of why the environment and conservation are important (amongst both political leaders and the general public). Certainly, nuclear energy will and should continue to play a role as part of the energy mix of the future, but the stuff needed to create energy in nuclear power plants is a nonrenewable resource–and it has been claimed that not enough fuel exists to meet the proposed new demand. Other drawbacks to nuclear power include the need for large amounts of water (drought is the Achilles heel of nuclear power and drought has threatened to shut down and drought has shut down nuclear power plants) needed for cooling. Furthermore, despite the recycling of waste, energy is lost during the process and further waste is still produced, so waste recycling isn’t perpetual or a sustainable option (and we don’t “have ways of dealing with the waste in a safe and effective manner”). It’s not that I’m against nuclear power, but I support prudent policies that can reasonably tackle some of our most pressing environmental and energy challenges. I don’t believe constructing several dozen or several hundred additional nuclear power plants is smart policy. What’s more, fossil fuels and nuclear energy have been subsidized, supported, and lobbied for decades, so it’s time to invest that same time and energy into renewable energy sources, promising new technologies and theories, in addition to ideas such as distributed energy generation. Smarter energy policies, although becoming more and more mainstream, aren’t mainstream yet. Lastly, it’s in everyone’s best interest to be an environmentalist, since our economies, health, and security are directly depended on a healthy environment and availability of renewable and nonrenewable resources.
We don’t need to fund more alternatives. Solar, wind, and tidal will work now. But there are two issues.
One, our transmission and storage is awful. We need to invest in technologies for transmitting and storing power efficiently, so that wind farms in the Dakotas, solar plants in the Southwest, and tidal generators on the coast line can power the entire country. Or even more radical power generation like orbital stations would become effective.
Two. In order to build those wind farms, solar plants, and tidal generators, we need to step on some environmentalist toes. The argument goes something like this.
“We want green power!”
“Fine will build wind farms in the Dakotas”
“No! Those will kill birds!”
“Then will build solar plants in the US Southwest.”
“WHAT? And ruin the desert?!”
“Then we could build tidal…”
“No! There are endangered species in those reefs!!!”
“Well we could use nuclear power…”
“And mutate my babies, I think not.”
“Ok, we can do this, but it’s going to cost more.”
“Are you kidding me?”
It’s a catch 22 right now. And no one is willing to compromise
And unless we get power companies, oil companies and other polluting industries on board, there will never be enough support, research, or investment into a clean economy. And no matter how compelling the data or research is, a few billion dollar industries banded together are quite a force to fight against.
Lastly, I love the environment, and would love to see more real life, workable solutions put into place. What’s prohibiting building these buildings? They meet code, and could be built right now, especially given