Old math posing new problems

I fully understand the benefit of conservatism. As a person who believes in environmental protection, the idea that we move slowly and consider all impacts before making a decision has great value to me. At their core, most environmentalists just want us to understand that we did not do that back when we decided to do things that are harmful to the planet and its life support systems. If we had followed a more conservative philosophy then, perhaps we would not find ourselves in the position we now sit.

What I do not understand, nor can I support, is the refusal to accept new information masking as conservatism. Assuming that because things have always acted a certain way, that they will inherently continue to do so...even in the face of strong information to the contrary...does not make logical sense regardless of one's political sensibility. Would any one of us, placed in a time machine and deposited in the middle of Pompeii, listen to the locals when they decide to stay because "the mountain has rumbled before but never done us harm"?

Or, more recently and less catastrophically, look at the development of wind energy technology and its application in Germany. Germany has approximately 25,000 wind turbines in the country with a capacity for around 35 GW of power production. This past year, at some peak energy consumption times, renewables supplied 75% of the electricity in the country. This is truly a great feat and an example of what can be done when governments work with industry to plan around energy.

In order for Germany to really move forward...both in terms of emissions reductions and energy independence...they would likely need to triple the amount of wind they have in the country. Conservative thinking might say, "That means we need 75,000 turbines to get there...we can never do that!" Forecasters and analysts might be tempted to assume a slowdown in German wind energy because of the potential for trouble with locating new turbines.

The real trouble is, that the assumption that triple the energy means triple the turbines ignores two potentials: The potential that turbines get more efficient, and the potential that we find better places to build them. If land-based turbines move from about 1.5 MW each to 5.0 MW each through better blade technology and better energy transfer technology, that means we can upgrade existing turbines to produce more. If offshore wind technologies, which offer even better performance, can replace aging on-shore turbines - especially in lower-performing areas - then we net even higher production.

All in told, through technological improvements, siting improvements, and management improvements, Germany can deliver the increased production likely with fewer turbines, not more...as few as 21,000. This means that few new routes for infrastructure are needed, that fewer political hurdles will have to be overcome, and that those companies with the best technology stand to benefit, driving innovation. More importantly, faced with this information, policy makers can figure out the best way to achieve the end goal, rather than getting scared by the daunting task of tripling the nations infrastructure for wind.

This is something that even conservatives can love.

Source for German wind data: Renewables International the magazine.