How Much Variety of Renewables Do We Want?

Craig, you seem to think that there should be a single best solution for clean energy. I would agree with you if you qualified your assertion to state that there is a single best solution for a given site. For example, a mountain top with high steady winds may be crying out for a a wind farm, but a wooded valley location with almost no wind would probably benefit from a low head hydro plant…..
I acknowlege that I am in a slim minority of those who do not favor a wide variety of renewables. I’m optimistic that we as a civilization will find our way out of the mess we’ve created for ourselves. But I find it hard to believe that this solution will come in the form of 8 – 10 different renewable technologies.
You raise a good point, of course, in that different sites lend themselves to different renewable energy technologies: the plains support wind, the mountains geothermal, the deserts solar, etc. And if you’re truly a “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” type of guy, maybe you really DO want all of them. But I ask: Why?
Let’s keep our eye on the ball. All we need to do is harvest and distribute 1/6000th of the sun’s energy. I grant that this can be done through a variety of means, but if we can choose one or two that meet all our criteria (low-cost, scaleable, safe, clean, etc.) do we really need to develop and support them all?
Of course, all this does presuppose a cost-effective way of distributing power around the continent. As I’ve written elsewhere, I believe that we have to upgrade our grid — even in the absence of deeper penetration of renewable energy. As an integral part of this upgrade, I favor high voltage DC power transmission (VHDC), minimizing line losses over long distances.
I’m not a futurist by trade. But I’ll go on record right now and make a bold prediction. Long before the midpoint of this century, the technology surrounding solar thermal will have matured to such a point that it will represent a clean and bankable path to the end of the world energy conundrum. At a certain point soon thereafter, 90+% of the Earth’s population will enjoy low-cost and very clean energy brought about by a combination of solar thermal (concentrated solar power), molten salt energy storage and VHDC power transmission.

I posted this
I asked global warming (GW) skeptic Jarrett Buys to explain the melting of the glaciers as evidenced by photos taken over the last century and the data
“The good news is, you got an order from Costco,” my good friend John Tyson says, explaining the discussions he has with his clients. “The bad news is, you got an order from Costco.” He then elucidates, laying out the great many things that could qualify as “bad news” about receiving an order for millions of dollars worth of whatever it is the client happens to be selling: brutal negotiations, ridiculous delivery schedules, oppressive logistics, and, at the end of it all, the threat that, if you’re one iota off in any way, you’ll never get another chance.
I have to admit that I find myself in a quandary about products that are not strictly speaking environmentally sustainable but that offer considerable benefits compared to those that they would replace. Obviously, the world would be a cleaner place if we’d stop burning hydrocarbons, but the truth is we can’t – or we won’t – and thus it makes sense to understand the nature of certain compromises that are available.
I conducted my interview with ex-CIA director
Merry Christmas everyone!
The only downside I see to spending a few minutes of my life every day writing a new blog post is the concern I have for “preaching to the choir.” With few exceptions, it seems to me that the people at 2GreenEnergy,
For some reason, I’m always somewhat surprised to read comments about conservation – they’re numerous, and they’re heartfelt. Frequent commentor Dan Conine writes: