Letter to Komanoff

Image via Wikipedia

Dear Charles Komanoff,

In a world where climate change is an ever relevant problem, alternative energies seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. But as Robert McNatt, a “Business Week” editor, emphasizes in his article “Alternative Energy Vexes Auto and Utilities” on July 10, 2008, the light may be much further away than most would imagine.

Your article in Orion Magazine September 2006 “Whither Wind” contains excellent information and is very convincing. It makes me think that anyone who doesn’t think wind power is the best and forefront form of energy would be crazy. And as a symbol the windmill is a great image for the future that the world will have with new sources of energy that doesn’t damage our Earth. After reading “Whither Wind” I researched more about alternative energies and found an article that presents another interesting view. It is that nuclear power may be needed and refers to how we need more money to make what you want to happen with windmills happen, to make them a more substantial form of energy.

In “Alternative Energy Vexes Auto and Utilities” McNatt argues that the switch to alternative energy will take time. He uses automobiles as a primary example of this: they do

not have the technology to mass produce energy efficient vehicles and the time that it takes to even imagine a way to be more environmentally friendly while still appealing to a consumer is great. What would really interest you are his opinions on energy utilities and which ones should be avoided and which ones are currently our best strategy for the future. By distinguishing time, wind power, and alternative energy in general, the two articles mirroring McNatt and you can be evaluated.

I would like you to read McNatt’s article because your ideas support each other while they also disagree. Both your article and his portray the belief that the world needs to think more liberally towards alternative energies and continue to fight for a greener world. You both also seem to acknowledge that time is not a friend to this movement, that if we don’t recognize this problem today by the time someone will it may be too late. The main disagreement that I can see the two of you having is your opinions on wind energy. You believe that wind energy is a reasonable solution while McNatt spells out that it is not the best option and has severe shortcomings, most especially price.

Besides disagreeing about wind energy the main difference between you and McNatt is that you write about alternative energies as needed as soon as possible while he believes that their high cost renders them a thing of the future. McNatt states, “At the very least, it will be many years before alternative fuels provide a significant share of power generation” because of the need of great financial support from the government. You both would have a lot to discuss about alternative energy, especially wind power. Your article “Whither Wind” is what brought me to this conclusion. You share that you are persistent and will continue to advocate for your beliefs as long as relevantly possible with the example with the nightmares based around pollution. McNatt is the same in that he also is persistent and will not roll over. The entire purpose of his article is to say that even if the future we wish for is far in the distance, at least it exists.

What may interest you are the facts that McNatt presents about the automobile industry in trying to become more environmentally friendly. How most companies are moving away from fossil fuels, but at a slow rate; and all about the challenge that some companies are having with hybrid cars. Did you know how crowded the hybrid car market is? Too bad wind powered cars are not promising; if they existed they would be very unreliable.

As I said earlier your ideas do support each other yet they also disagree. In “Alternative Energy Vexes Auto and Utilities” McNatt exclaims that “wind resources suitable for generating large amounts of electricity are often located far from population centers, so transmission can be a costly issue.” He also mentions, as you do, that they are harmful to birds and other flying creatures. McNatt continues on to how wind power is also unreliable due to hard to predict wheather. But in favor of them he acknowledges that they can be built very quickly and can be rather large.

The problem is that energy sources that have a larger negative effect on the environment are also cheaper, so the consumer of that energy really needs to voice the opinion that they want more expensive energy to help the environment. Thus at the rate we are going the average consumer of energy will most likely not want to raise prices until they can see a substantial physical change in the surroundings that effect them directly. But by that time it may be too late. In that, I can see your fears towards the matter. But really there is little besides educating the public about the situation as much as possible, and that can only go so far. But why do I need to be the one to care?

The question, “why should I care?”, was significant in “Whither Wind”. Why should I pay extra for wind energy while my evil twin is polluting like crazy? Well, as you discuss it is because each of us make a difference and will influence those around us to be similar. My twin may eventually learn by my example, which would be great. We always underestimate the power that we as individuals have. It is important to remember that there are always other options.

McNatt sees other forms of energy just as substantial as wind. He feels the same towards solar power as he does towards wind power; seeing it as expensive, not very reliable, or substantial. But he acknowledges both as a work in progress. If we could find a cheaper way to harness these energies time could be decreased until our energy gathering is not remotely note worthy as a world problem.

After reading yours and McNatt’s article I think that you both could agree that even though speedy change is unlikely, as long as the individuals in the modernized world continue to lead by example, we are not doomed. I think that there is still at least a little bit of time left, but it must not be wasted. We know she will continue racing even when humans are gone. How will time unveil our common wishes, that alternative energy becomes no longer alternative but primary?

Trust me on this, “Alternative Energy Vexes Auto and Utilities” is an article that is worth your time to read as it discusses the ideals that are the raw essence within your article, “Whither Wind”. While alternative energies are usually viewed as a good thing, economically they may be harmful if they are introduced to early, which could have an even larger catastrophic event occur than the slow decline that human pollution may bring.

Sincerely

Nathan Foore