Science and Environmental Policy Project

“Clean” Energy and “Sustainable” Energy

By S. Fred Singer, PhD—— Bio and Archives--January 9, 2011

Global Warming-Energy-Environment | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The concern about global warming,—oops, “climate change,” oops, “climate disruption”—has brought with it the use of phrases that need to be better defined.

The term “clean energy” is one that bothers me most. No energy source is truly clean. Even hydroelectric energy requires the construction of dams, which affect sedimentation and cause other hydrological and ecological problems. Nuclear energy may be considered as clean until you become concerned about the mining of uranium and the disposal of spent fuel. But these days, the term “clean energy” is most often applied to coal-burning electricity generation. Conventionally, this had meant the removal of pollutants at the smoke stack after burning the coal in a boiler. These pollutants include the “criterion pollutants” defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), principally sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. By law, all coal-burning plants must satisfy the emission criteria set up by the CAA.

But because of the concern about global warming, however misplaced, “clean energy” is now assumed to exclude sources the emit CO2. But CO2 is clean by any existing standard: it is non-toxic, non-iritating, a colorless, transparent gas that exists naturally in the atmosphere—and indeed in the human body. The term “clean energy” should have nothing to do with CO2. One should fight, therefore, against the misuse of this term until the legal issues are fully settled - which may not be for many years to come.

“Sustainable” is another term that has become popular—and in a sense, meaningless. We are asked to use energy in a sustainable way, when in fact the fossil fuels used to create energy are depleted and cannot be recovered (like for example, metal resources, especially silver and gold). Fossil fuels are not renewable, at least on a human time scale.

While solar energy and wind energy are “sustainable” and while ethanol and biofuels are counted as “renewable”, none of these are economic-unfortunately-or likely to become a major source of energy in the near future. Biofuels, like ethanol, have many problems attached to them, as even environmentalists now admit. Hydrogen is not an energy source by itself; it has to be manufactured.

Nuclear energy occupies a curious position. It is quasi-sustainable, in the sense that we know how to derive electric power from nuclear reactors for many thousands of years. It is also renewable, in the sense that we know how to create fissionable material, i.e., nuclear fuel, from non-fissionable elements.  Since nuclear energy is also reliable, economic, and fully available, it is likely to become the sustainable energy source of choice as fossil fuels become depleted.

S. Fred Singer, PhD, President of Science & Environmental Policy Project Dr. Singer can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Guest Column S. Fred Singer, PhD -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Items of notes and interest from the web.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: