ShareThis Page
Choosing sides in the energy morals fight |
Featured Commentary

Choosing sides in the energy morals fight


The fight to develop renewable energy is a battle of good against evil and the future of humanity hangs in the balance.

No, I’m not talking about climate change (though that is certainly important). I’m talking about the distribution of wealth and power across the whole planet. The question of who will reap the benefits of future growth hinges on whether we discover new, better sources of energy.

The story of our species goes like this: For thousands of years, humanity’s energy budget was basically fixed — we got energy from our own bodies, from animals and from wood. All of those came from land — whoever had the land controlled the energy. Since technological progress was slow, the best way to get rich was to take someone else’s land.

But then technological progress accelerated dramatically and we discovered how to extract energy from fossil fuel. These two processes fed each other, and the result was an increase in human well-being like nothing the world had ever seen. Suddenly, great fortunes were made from inventing new things and organizing people for productive activity, rather than from seizing land from the neighbors. It became a positive-sum world, much more peaceful as well as much richer.

Most of us would like that positive-sum world to continue. There’s just one problem — there is a very limited supply of fossil fuel energy on our planet. In the 2000s, those limits started making themselves apparent; many thought we were on the verge of peak oil, standing on the precipice of a new dark age. Human ingenuity battled back and gave us shale gas and tight oil, which have sent energy prices back down — but not down to where they were before the middle of the last decade. Fracking shale is expensive and it’s going to get more so as time goes on. It’s not a long-term solution.

If we don’t find a better source of energy than oil and gas, Vladimir Putin’s militarized gas station represents the future of our planet. Against this grim future stand the forces of good, human ingenuity and smarts. If we can come up with new energy sources that are better than oil and gas, then we can get back on the positive-sum path. And if those new energy sources are things that don’t run out in a century or two, then the positive-sum world can last basically forever.

There are two potential energy sources that could let us escape the zero-sum world. The first is fusion energy. The second is solar energy.

Fusion, the ultimate energy solution, has long been a pipe dream, but researchers continue to push ahead with new ideas. Lockheed Martin has announced breakthroughs in compact fusion reactors, and startups such as Helion Energy and General Fusion are attracting attention and money.

Solar, meanwhile, has seen stupendous price declines. A new Deutsche Bank report says that even if government subsidies for solar power are slashed from the current 30 percent to only 10 percent, solar electricity will be cheaper than fossil-fuel electricity in 36 states by 2016. Plunging costs are being driven by new technology, by economies of scale and improvements in the solar-panel manufacturing process, and by drops in “balance of system” costs.

Renewable energy is a moral crusade. If human ingenuity wins, we remain in a world where new ideas and productive effort are the main determinants of prosperity. If technology loses, then more and more of the world’s wealth and power will flow into the hands of violent men who seize land with force.

Noah Smith is an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University in New York.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.