Solar Energy's Warning Shot posted by Ben

Imagine for a moment that there was a source of energy available that operated twenty-four hours a day, produced no pollution, worked best during periods of highest demand, and was far less complicated and far safer than nuclear reactors, all while producing a comparable amount of energy.

Now image that you're the President of the United States. Do you seize on this technology, where just one plant can keep 830,000 tons of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere every year? Of course you don't. You ignore it, push to build more nuclear reactors and dig more oil wells, and let Australia and China take the lead.

If you weren't so embarrassed by the Europeans refusing to maintain an arms embargo against China (and they're only doing it to spite you) you might feel upset that China was setting itself up to have a clean, endless supply of energy available and the infrastructure to support it. You might be worried that this country you fear so much (what's really driving your insane North Korea policy, Mr. President?) will, in the long term, be able to maintain their economic viability with cheap energy long after the world's oil reserves have dwindled too far to match America's ravenous energy demands. Or, more likely, you won't ever hear that this technology exists, because the utilities barons who drive your energy policy can't see past their quarterly profit margins.

Which is unfortunate, because the Solar Tower discussed in this Wired article is a fascinating take on the use of solar technology to generate what is essentially wind power.

The Solar Tower is hollow in the middle like a chimney. At its base is a solar collector -- a 25,000-acre, transparent circular skirt. The air under the collector is heated by the sun and funneled up the chimney by convection -- hot air rises. As it rises, the air accelerates to 35 mph, driving 32 wind turbines inside the tower, which generate electricity much like conventional wind farms.

But the Solar Tower has a major advantage over wind farms and solar generators: It can operate with no wind, and 24 hours a day. Thanks to banks of solar cells, the tower stores heat during the day, allowing it to produce electricity continuously.

What especially interests me in this article is that this technology has been around since the early 80's. However, two major factors prevented its development or widespread adoption. The first is economic: why bother looking seriously at solar energy when oil is cheap and plentiful? or when nuclear power is just so... cool? The second is one of scale. In order to be truly efficient, a massive structure needs to be built, the highest in the world. And that costs money. For an investor with an eye on the long term, the $750 million plus price tag is still pretty hefty. Which brings us back to the necessity of government participation.

So what's the big difference between a comparably priced nuclear power plant and a solar tower? Perversely, I think that the answer is money. Compare the nuclear power lobby in D.C. to the solar power lobby. Which one do you think has more funding? Which has better access to the centers of political power?

I was reading today's commentary over on Liberal Oasis when I came across a quote from Howard Dean that helps put this energy issue into a wider context.

DEAN: ...In foreign affairs, there's a phenomenon called “encirclement”...

...A single, very great power with no obvious rivals in the world who exercises that power unilaterally and in contempt of other countries will result in the formation of an alliance of other second-tier powers to contain the power of that great military power...

...It will happen over a period of years. Should I become president --

TIM RUSSERT: It will happen? We will [become] a secondary military power?

DEAN: If we continue following George Bush's military policy and defense policy, [we] will become a secondary military power.

With this long-term perspective on the future, Dean's argument becomes relevant not just militarily, but economically and environmentally. For better or for worse, China has realized that the next fifty years will bring radical environmental, military, and economic change to the world. And unlike the United States, they have already begun to react. For instance, they have put a huge amount of dam construction on hold to assess its environmental impact. They have begun studying alternative energy sources. And they have positioned their currency, by pegging it to the dollar, to give them the power to effect massive change in the international currency markets, and by extension, the worldwide economy simply by virtue of whose currency they support. (If China stops purchasing U.S. bonds, and therefore supporting our massive deficit, not only will we fall into a gigantic recession, but the cost of Chinese goods will rise dramatically. Woe to our Wal*Mart communities then!)

This "Tower of Power" isn't just a cute use of alternative energy. It's a symbol and a warning of how our political shortsightedness is clearing the way for a catastrophic collapse of the modern American way of life. And we ignore it at our peril.