Distributed technologies in California's energy future: A preliminary report. Volume 2

Abstract

* This perception underlies Lovins' proposals (1976, 1977) and is the justification for their radical character.-17-9.J Sor~E SPECIFIC H1PACTS OF "SOFr l AND "TRANSITION" TECHNOLOGIES The obstacles and pitfalls in the way of systematic environmental assessment even of well-established energy technologies, as described in Section 2 above. are especially formidable when one considers technologies deployed so far only on a small scale or not at all. Nevertheless, the framework provided facilitates asking some of the right questions about environmental impacts of the "soft" and fltransition" technologies, and consideration of the criteria proposed for evaluating severity permits at least some tentative conclusions. A listing of impacts of possible importance identified in this and previous studies of alternative energy technologies is given in Table iX-5. In what follows, I compare some of the principal soft and transition energy options to more traditional energy supplies with respect to some of the major categories of stresses/responses outlined in Section 2: land ~se, water use, use of nonfuel materials, occuoational accidents and disease, risk to public life and limb through sman accidents, risk of large accidents and sabotage, effects of routine emissions on publ'ic hea'lth, effects on climate, ecological effects, aesthetic effects, and military threats. 9.3.1 Land Use Real land~use effects of dispersed nonelectric energy options are difficult to pin down persuasively. It is often asserted that solar * The actual peak power from those windmills would be greater than 1 GWe and the operating hours per year less than 5700. * large dam (i.e., high one) than for a typical small one. Use of biomass plantations for generating electricity, as opposed to making portable fuels, seems too foolish an idea to be seriously entertained. If plantations are used at all, we will almost certainly need the fuel much more than the electricity, considering the re~~tive abundance of alternative ways to get the latter; and the land-use requirement for an "electricity plantation" in California would be on the order of 2000 km 2 per GWe if eucalyptus biomass capturing 1 percent of incident sunlight could be converted into electricity at 25% efficiency. 9.3.2 Water Use. .. , t .