Switch is an OK documentary. Considering its high production value, substantial travel budget, and relatively unbiased commentary, it is one of the best energy films I have seen. However, like many related films, it falls short of being the exciting, paradigm-shattering revelation everyone hopes for. Its main conclusion simply confirmed our present suspicion that there exists no silver-bullet replacement for the cheap, abundant, energy-dense, and endlessly transportable fossil fuels that dominate current energy production. The film gently rejected each alternative based on scalability, intermittency, or cost-effectiveness issues. In the end, nuclear appears to be the winner so long as the waste is recycled and stored in a French manner. Apparently, 96% of spent material can be reincorporated into new fuel, and the wasted 4% can be removed, compressed, and stored; the film shows a French warehouse with the capacity to safely store the waste associated with producing energy for 600 million people over many decades… and the warehouse is not very large. It doesn't address the problems of public fear, terrorism threats, or outrageously high upfront capital costs, but it certainly makes nuclear power much more attractive.
The film does not address very new innovations such as thorium or tidal technologies, but this is not surprising, considering how it takes such a critically realistic stance on all technologies. Which is is a good thing, in my opinion.
With this information at hand, the film predicts a gradual decline in the proportion of our energy sourced from fossil fuels, accompanied by a gradual increase in nuclear and some renewables. This proportional meeting point will occur about 50 years from now. I'm guessing that most of you probably buy this. I certainly do - it's a boring transition, but a realistic one nonetheless. Hence my logical side accepts this, considering how hydraulic fracturing will likely extend the demise of fossil fuels for decades, and once they go, we’ll have nothing but nuclear to fill in the baseload gaps. My less reasonable side rejects this, however, in favor of the U.S. regulating gas extraction, pricing carbon, and incentivizing renewables, especially cellulosic biofuels.
I didn't see the film, so sorry if this is a stupid question...by why nuclear? Is it only because the technology is relatively well established compared to other renewables?
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of the energy supplies the less reasonable side of you goes for! And I like the idea of cellulosic biofuels, too. But they don't allow for the degree of distributed generation that solar/wind do. I mean, it's unlikely that everyone will have a biodigester in their back yard (or is it?). Why is cellulosic biofuel your preferred renewable technology?
Well, it's just my opinion that the film was promoting nuclear. I feel that way because they sot of poo-pooed everything except nuclear. I think it's not only due to reliability and trust (as you mentioned), but also the problem of baseload demand. Where are we going to get it in the absence of coal or natural gas? See my latest post for a proposal for meeting small-scale baseload demand with a mix of three or four renewable sources.
ReplyDeleteWith cellulosic biofuels, I'm talking about ethanol production to continue offsetting gasoline consumption, until complete electric vehicle solutions are developed. I'm also talking about biomass combustion for steam and electricity production - switchgrass and agriculture/forstry residues. What do you mean by distributed generation?