This commentary is by Terry Breen, a resident of Charlotte and a retired executive in the high-tech industry.
There is a strong correlation between quality of life and amount of energy consumed. It is clear the countries with the best quality of life, longest life expectancy, strongest economy, best health services and stable national security also consume the most energy per capita.
Most of us think our global appetite for energy is accelerating. Yet we know our current energy solutions are harming our environment. So, like every other debate in our society, we immediately fall into two extreme and oversimplified camps of thought: Go green now versus continue to use fossil fuel solutions.
It’s a false debate because it isn’t either/or; it’s both. Energy independence and green energy are not incompatible.
I support large-scale joint Department of Energy and private-sector investment in energy research (once research on green energy solutions research is verified, the private-sector capital markets will swarm with massive amounts of development and production money). Research is needed in many areas, including a) how to effectively store power generated by solar and wind, b) how to develop safe fission power with minimal waste, c) how to cost-effectively burn natural gas with zero emission, and d) how to crack the holy grail code of fusion power. Research is also needed to redesign or replace very important products that consume a lot of fossil fuel, including transportation, cement, plastic, fertilizer and steel.
I believe focused research will solve all the items listed above; our capacity in the 21st century to solve technical problems is massive. But it takes time (decades), not just money. Which means, the faster we focus, the faster we will see results.
In the meantime, we need to operate a safe and prosperous country with the cleanest available energy at scale: natural gas and nuclear fission (70-80%), complemented by hydro, solar, wind and oil (20-30%). This means more natural gas and oil exploration, production and transportation in the medium term (one to three decades), as well as building new fission plants.
States need to aggressively shut down coal- and wood-fueled power plants, migrate to our abundance of natural gas (U.S. natural gas is 42% cleaner than Russia natural gas) and accept/build nuclear fission solutions.
The one thing the government and private utilities can start now is to heavily invest in the efficiency, capacity and durability of the electricity grid. For the most part, our grids are several decades old and vulnerable to attacks, failures, efficiency leakage and capacity constraints. Regardless of the mix of new energy sources in our near future, we are going to need a stronger grid; an investment now is prudent.
During the time needed to invent new clean energy solutions at scale, we cannot threaten our safety, our health and our economy by not having enough energy. The good news is the social/political momentum on green energy is real and as soon as viable scaled solutions exist, capital and citizens will run to them fast! But “the lights need to be kept on” until this happens. It’s a complex and necessary transition, one that will take decades to complete. The goal is well understood; now we have to develop the transition plan to get to the goal.
I am looking forward to a political leader who has the courage, smarts and maturity to step up and change the debate: Energy independence and green energy are not incompatible. Quite the contrary, they are complementary.
