Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Clean Energy Week! (or how i learned to stop worrying and love the little picture)


It’s been a week since the election, and I keep thinking about Harry Truman who, upon assuming the Presidency on April 12, 1945, told reporters that he felt “like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen” on him. Truman came into the Presidency after 82 days as VP to Franklin Roosevelt, who hadn’t exactly kept Truman abreast of domestic and foreign affairs. One of the first secrets Truman learned of when he took office was the existence of the Manhattan Project, and one of the first decisions he had to make was whether or not to employ nuclear warfare. Very heavy indeed.
While President-elect Obama doesn’t look as bewildered as Truman reported feeling, I have to imagine that he’s had the same elevated experience of his own gravity. He has the weight of two wars, a ponderously sagging economy, and a potential energy crisis-- not to mention 300 million Americans watching to see what he’ll do.

While energy issues didn’t rank highly at the exit polls (compared especially to the economy), the President-elect’s economic plan appears increasingly to be tied to the promotion of green technology and the creation of green jobs. Obama’s energy platform proposes investing $150 billion in clean energy technology over the next decade to create five million new green collar jobs. And at her post-election press conference last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke of a stimulus package that would “grow our economy by creating jobs and to do it in a newer, greener way.”

There is some debate about the validity of tying the economy to energy policy. Some, like David Brooks, view the economic crisis as an opportunity to transform the way we supply and manage energy in the U.S.—something he says we could have done in the 1970’s. Critics argue that Obama’s green investment/job creation plan ignores the jobs that would be lost in the fossil fuel industry.

And there are some who scoff at the perceived potential of alternative energies in general, which is something I can't quite understand. Perhaps part of that sentiment stems from a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that environmentalists are often grounded in neither reality nor science, but only politics. I can understand that. I can also understand (and share) a healthy skepticism of anything being touted as the Next Great Thing. On the other hand, it strikes me as dangerously myopic to view energy alternatives in terms of either politics or fads. Some alternative energies are new, but they're here, and people are using them.

But these are big issues. Because I am not required to shoulder the weight of the solar system or the world or the drooping economy or the depleting ice caps (yes, they are. yes, it's us), I'd rather not. I'd rather walk around New York City and check out some of the green building they're doing around here. So for the next week or so, look forward to a feature each day on a building in NYC. I'll focus on a different type of energy (wind, solar, etc.) with each post.

Though I'll start with those tomorrow, I'll leave you with something to wet your recycled, sustainable, Earth-friendly whistle today...it's Big and Green and really Bizarre...
It's a building designed by architect David Foster for Dubai, called Dynamic Tower. Each floor is designed to rotate 360 degrees, and the building will generate all of it's own electricity through inter-floor, horizontal wind turbines and solar panels on the roof of each floor. Weird? Definitely. Possible? Maybe.

5 comments:

Ryan Fitz Gibbon said...

Dubai loves it's crazy shit

Anonymous said...

We have been faced with the, "Alternate energy is good; just not in my back yard" dilemma recently. There is a proposal to build 60 wind turbines in the Manistee National Forest (on the west coast of Michigan). The windmills are 420 feet tall, ribbon roads will be widened to 60 feet, an acre of forest will be cleared for each windmill. One worries about the noise, the birds (migrating and our beloved Bald Eagles), and the changing scenery. But, as one neighbor put it, "How can I say I'm against it if I'm for alternative energy?" I guess we have to look at the big picture on this one...

Emily said...

Thanks for the comment! You identified three of the four major issues with wind power-- noise, birdkills, and ugly. It will be interesting to see public debate over wind farming intensify as farms begin to crop up around the country. It seems likely that we'll go through an uncomfortable trial-and-error period before we begin to understand wind energy impacts.

I'm interested, too, in the resolution of the fourth issue: if wind is generated on a large scale, organizing the harvested energy in the power grid becomes tricky. I wonder if a lot of our "energy transformation" in the U.S. will come from a re-imagining of the power grid system...

The forest service is taking a year to consider the wind farm proposal in Manistee-- hopefully this will include a careful study of bird migratory patterns in the area, and an analysis of how the turbines might affect the bald eagle population. I wonder if the forest service will also consider potential impact on the tourism industry in Manistee.

If the proposal goes through, one thing's for sure: no one will have to argue about who the noisiest neighbors are anymore.

Bushrod said...

The NIMBY problem with wind power is a tough one, and it's one that isn't going to be faced by people implementing generators using tidal or geothermal power, which are both submarine and subterrene, respectively.

It reminds me a lot of the controversy when cell phone towers were first being erected back in the day. People complained that they were eyesores, so a lot of them ended up being camouflaged as awkwardly-proportioned pine trees. Maybe something like that will happen with wind towers, but personally I think the answer is better design. Holland's been covered with windmills for centuries, but the Dutch dig them because they are cool to look at and add to the scenery rather than subtracting from it. If the new windmills can avoid that 50's era Erector-Set look in favor of something smoother and maybe more 'environmenal-esque', maybe objections would go down.

For example, the ones shown in this article that some guy has mounted on his garage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/business/04wind.html?scp=1&sq=wind%20power%20garage&st=cse

Bearwhale said...

Interesting, Emmers. I wonder how visible those wind turbines will be, and if one could see them if one was driving up Interstate 55.