Green Energy: Big vs. Better

A couple of intriguing posts on Treehugger today illustrate a fundamental dilemma in green futures: Should we aim for the big, centralized, wide-area distribution systems, or the small, local, individualized approach?

In the first category is a huge solar complex planned for southern California. Covering a not-unsubstantial 4,500 acres (albeit mostly desert) and using a mirror-hydrogen (not photovoltaic) technology, the station aims to mass-produce electricity for 6 cents a kilowatt hour (reasonably cheap by today's prices).

Still, centralization means less efficiency as power gets "lost" and dirtied up in transmission, maintenance costs must be figured in, even in desert there are environmental impacts. And on and on. No question that solar is better than coal or even hydro, but cost/benefit calcs still should apply.

Contrast the mega-solar to the mini-wind: Small wind-powered tech is catching on, powering everything from cell phones to TV sets:

"Small wind generation is a relatively simple concept and there is a good deal of do-it-yourself activity in building and tinkering low-output devises..."

No question there are big turbines as well, as anyone who has traveled outside of Los Angeles knows. And nano-solar remains a burgeoning field as well. We may wind up with a constellation of appropriate-tech systems, but in future energy the byword should be smaller is better.

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint GreenforGood sustainability green lifestyle