The road not taken

A month ago, I wrote a rather lengthy footnote (here) about a powerful documentary concerning our energy choices in the late 70's and early 80's that have shaped our energy future in the past three decades. The part I most remember about the documentary is how President Carter, with solar panels newly installed on the roof of the White House, warned of the potential for the panels to become, "a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken" if they and other renewable energy technologies were not widely adopted. Solar panels as a curiosity was an example of an alternate scenario he hoped we would avert in favor of an energy portfolio rich with renewable energy technologies. Needless to say, we did not heed President Carter's advice and, sadly, the solar panels now sit in the National Museum of American History. 

I'm not going to dwell on the fact that we've lost so many years where we could've been designing clean, renewable, safe technologies that would eventually phase out dirty, non-renewable, dangerous (here here here)  energy technologies we still rely on today. I'm not going to analogize energy technology to computer technology, either. I won't say that in 1980, renewable energy technology and computer technology were both in a relatively nascent period of development, that the wonder of technology I'm writing this post on (Macbook) is the product of 30 years of innovation, that in the same 30 years we could've also been developing renewable energy technology (thus making it more efficient, cheaper, and a viable alternative to fossil fuels) we did very little; I won't because it should be all too apparent.

But I will say this: anyone who picked up a newspaper this week saw a starkly contrasting example of yet another choice we must make regarding our energy future, this time regarding our oceans. The good news first. Cape Wind, the nation's first offshore wind farm, was given the federal green light to begin construction. It will generate enough energy (420 MW) as a medium-sized coal plant and represents the first step in catching up to the rest of the world with this technology. Opponents claim that the windfarm will pose environmental hazards and clutter the landscape. Would you rather see quiet (and I think, majestic) wind turbines spinning in the distance or a smoking oil rig? Or a shoreline covered in a oily sheen? Which brings me to the bad news, the tragic explosion of the oil rig and subsequent hemorrhaging of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Is it a coincidence that two major energy stories in the same week focused on the same ocean? Probably, but it doesn't diminish the choice we as a country must make when we decide our energy future in the coming months.

It's true that this issue isn't black and white. Strict environmental regulations for both offshore wind and drilling must be a priority. Further, social and economic factors must also be incorporated into development decisions. But taking these factors into consideration actually favors offshore wind -- think of an ocean full not with oil rigs but with wind turbines, with hardy, Armageddon-style crews zipping from turbine to turbine, performing necessary maintenance. I mean, Ben Affleck needs a job, doesn't he? It would certainly be safer than sitting on a bomb for a living (or detonating one on an asteroid hurtling towards Earth...). And, despite the announcement last month that the moratorium on offshore drilling would be lifted, I think this disaster puts a very visible reminder in American's eyes of the dangers of conventional energy choices. 

So here we stand, once again, with a decision to make. Will we maintain the status quo, subjecting our workers to the tremendous and unnecessary risks of producing unsustainable fossil fuels and leaving open the possibility of environmental disasters? Or will we take President Carter's 30 year old advice and invest in an energy future that makes oil rigs and coal mines curiosities and museum pieces?