Many a science fiction plot has involved a
rich new energy resource and the ensuing scramble of corporations and
world powers to secure it. From unobtanium in James Cameron’s Avatar to
Sakuradite in the classic anime series Code Geass, we as the audience
take it for granted that energy features heavily in geopolitics.
Why, then, would we assume in our real world that transitioning to clean
energy sources will make energy conflicts and insecurity into phenomena
of the past?
While we should avoid obsessively thinking of tomorrow’s energy trade as
a zero-sum competition, we should still consider how decarbonization
could alter international power relationships, and plan proactively to
minimize future risks and vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
Hydroelectric dams account for about 20% of
the US’s emissions-free electricity, making them one of the largest and
most useful sources of clean energy in the nation. But this distinction
has come at a high cost to both humans and the environment and,
consequently, drawn frequent calls for dam removal from
environmentalists.
But is dam removal a compatible goal with decarbonization? On the
surface, that appears unlikely, but a thorough analysis reveals that
many of the US’s most hazardous dams are quite small and could be
removed without significant impacts to our clean energy supply. What’s
more, numerous, less damaging methods could compensate for our lost
capacity.
That being said, whatever decisions we make, dam removal will always have human impacts that must we must consider.
|
|
This is what we're "reading" this week
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment