May 12 2011

NT Wright: not right about everything

Category: religion,terrorism,theologyharmonicminer @ 3:16 pm

Here is another take on the issue of the Christian response to terrorism, and specifically the killing of bin Laden.

The Flawed Theology of N. T. Wright « Commentary Magazine

One of the world’s leading New Testament scholars, N. T. Wright is a man from whom a great deal can be learned about church history and Christian theology. When he ventures from his specialty into areas he does not know very well—international affairs, for example—Bishop Wright is unfortunately prone to silly statements motivated by a brittle political ideology.

In the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, Wright criticized the United States for practicing a “form of vigilantism” and providing “ ‘justice’ only of the crudest sort.” America acts as the world’s “undercover policeman,” according to Wright, and he doesn’t much like it. And then he added this:

And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?

Wright is falling into a common error, which is to assume the Sermon on the Mount was intended to articulate a political philosophy and blueprint for how the state must conduct itself. In plain fact, the moral duties placed on persons are, in important respects, different from those placed on the state. Indeed, within Judaism and Christianity the state has invested in it powers and responsibilities that are different from, and sometimes denied to, persons.

In Romans 13, for example, St. Paul—to whom Wright has devoted several books—makes it clear that human government is divinely sanctioned by God to preserve public order. If the standards of the person are simplistically applied to the practices of the state, it would follow that, because persons are called to “turn the other cheek,” the state must do the same—thereby making the criminal-justice system unworkable and invasions by foreign powers inevitable.

Collapsing the distinction between person and state represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, which has granted to it powers of life, death, and coercion denied to individual persons. And these powers can be used to defend innocent lives and establish social order. They can also create the conditions that allow the church to exist, Christians to minister, and good works to be done. For this reason, the callings of soldier, policeman, and president are not merely permissible for Christians, but honorable.

By the logic of Wright’s argument—Jesus told us to love our enemies and those who take up the sword will perish by the sword—we should never retaliate under any circumstances: not against bin Laden, Mugabe, Pol Pot, Saddam, Hirohito, Hitler, or anyone. Proportionate and discriminate force would never be justified. What kind of moral world does Bishop Wright conclude would emerge from his political theology? And would he, who attended Oxford and now teaches at St. Andrews, be willing to live (or to ask his children and grandchildren live) in it?

The Christian response to tyranny is not nearly so simple-minded. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian during the time of Hitler’s rise to power. His American friends helped him escape in 1939, but he believed that he had to return to Germany to stand in solidarity with persecuted Christians there. “I shall have no right . . . to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people,” Bonhoeffer wrote to his friend Reinhold Niebuhr.

Once an avowed pacifist, Bonhoeffer joined an organization that was at the heart of the anti-Hitler resistance, became an advocate for the assassination of the Nazi dictator, and was eventually executed for his role in the plot. The camp doctor who witnessed the execution wrote:

I saw Pastor Bonhoeffer . . . kneeling on the floor praying fervently to his God. I was most deeply moved by the way this unusually lovable man prayed, so devout and so certain that God heard his prayer. At the place of the execution, he again said a short prayer and then climbed the steps to the gallows, brace and composed. His death ensued after a few seconds. In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God.

Bonhoeffer’s decision reflected “the finest logic of Christian martyrdom,” Niebuhr declared, and belongs “to the modern Acts of the Apostles.”

Quite apart from his obvious valor, Bonhoeffer displayed tremendous integrity, sophistication, and deep understanding when it came to Christian ethics. It would be beneficial for N. T. Wright to reflect upon, and to learn from, Bonhoeffer’s example.

It’s probably dangerous for we mere mortals to criticize the likes of Rev. Wright, with his amazing contributions to New Testament scholarship and the like.  But that very erudtion is what prompts me to wonder how such a brilliant person can fail to see the distinction between personal ethics (and a person acting only AS an individual person) and governing necessities.  If all the Muslims in Britain decide to organize and burn down every church in the Isles, not to mention every Christian seminary and institution, at what point will Rev. Wright’s disdain for violence in response to violence give way to recognizing the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens?

On another occasion I plan to discuss what seems to be included in the “turn the other cheek” metaphor, and what does not.  But it surely is not intended as a charge to renounce all violence, when that’s what is necessary to protect the innocent.


May 08 2011

Christians, warfare and OBL

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 1:39 pm

A Baptist minister and former Navy SEAL speaks on Christians in war, in The Way I see It: Reacting to Osama Bin Laden

Ten years ago today I was an active duty Navy SEAL deployed to the Middle East, today I am the Senior Pastor of Valley Baptist Church contemplating the death of Osama Bin Laden. Every now and again I have these moments where my two worlds sort of collide. Today is one of them. The internet is a furry with news, Facebook status updates, and blogs all reporting on this historical event. The chatter has inspired me to blog on a topic that is near and dear to my heart–The Christian and Combat.

First, let me begin by stating that I am writing this on my own behalf. My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect any group that I represent. These are my thoughts in progress and I do not claim to be an expert…although, I probably could. 🙂

Second, I have had many discussions with Christian pacifists over the years. I love the majority of them dearly. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ and we just don’t agree on this one issue. Some have accused me of not being able to see the Scriptures clearly because my background distorts my ability to listen to the Bible’s teaching. I admit that this really bothers me. They are simply wrong and assume my inclination is to hold a “pro war/violence position” because of my military background. In all honesty, the opposite is true. I have had to draw my gun on people (although I have never actually had to kill someone) and I have lost a number of very close friends in battle and have seen the after affects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to take a pacifist position on this subject, but the Scriptures will not allow me to do that (in my humble opinion). Violence of any sort is horrible and I long for the day when God scraps this world and starts a new, but for now I am here living in a sinful fallen world faced with horrible things where there is no simple answer.

“The Christian and Combat” was the title of my Master of Divinity thesis. As a former Navy SEAL who is now a pastor and law enforcement chaplain, I feel I need to get to work and convert it into a user friendly format for publication as I am often asked for my thoughts on this subject. One of these days, one of these days…

My first combat mission was on September 9, 1999–my 25th birthday. At this point in my life, I had spent the last seven years preparing for this moment and had been a Christian for about 3 years. It was dark, pitch black dark, in the Northern Arabian Gulf off the coast of Iraq, my adrenaline was flowing, and I distinctly remember thinking, “Gunnar, how did you get yourself into this one?” I know the feeling that many soldiers and cops experience…my prayer is that I can help those who protect us answer these deep theological questions prior to finding themselves in combat.

There is no way for me to blog about this in its entirety–I need to write that book. But I will attempt to answer a couple of questions: 1) the need for warriors, 2) the authority of the warrior, and 3) the Christians response to violence.

The need for warriors. There is a story in the Old Testament that inspired the writing of my thesis and it is found in 1 Samuel 23:1-5. David and his mighty men are on the run from Saul when David gets word that the Philistines are plundering the people of Keilah. My first point against the pacifist argument is evil is happening all around us. You can be a totally passive person (which I feel like I am) and find yourself witnessing one person or group that is violently attacking another. I love what Dietrich Bonhoeffer says about this reality, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” David and his men were exposed to an evil situation, their initial reaction was not to respond because they weren’t in the best position to help. David asked God a second time if this is what he was to do. God’s desire was for David to proceed onward using violence to stop this evil that was already in progress. Today is no different. Evil is everywhere. Men and women everywhere are doing evil to all sorts of people. Are Christians simply not to intervene? I don’t think so.

The authority of the warrior–military, cop, or individual. The clearest teaching anywhere in the Bible on this subject is found in Romans 12:9-13:4. This passage is pretty intriguing to me this week as it is very similar the Sermon on the Mount which I am preaching on through the month of May. Romans 12:9-17 has all of the verses that pacifists love to quote like: “Bless those who persecute you”, “Never pay back evil for evil”, etc, etc. Yes, I believe this all applies to the Christian and I take these verses literally, but a literal interpretation forces one to look at the whole context–one cannot study Scripture in isolation of the whole.

Romans 12:18-19 begins to shed some light on how we as Christians are able to do this. First, the Bible says we are to be at peace with other people if it is possible and as much as it depends on our own actions. Then it says, “leave room for the wrath of God.” Okay so this is very interesting. We are not to take our own vengeance because God’s wrath is more effective than our own wrath (okay, the text doesn’t say why, that is my opinion). In my Bible I have drawn from “wrath of God” in Romans 12:19 down to Romans 13:4 where the thought carries through. Here the Bible essentially says that “it” (i.e. the authorities or government) “does not bear the sword for nothing” and that it is a “minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

I have met a number of pacifists that I respect. Concerning these verses in Romans 13 they would agree that the government is responsible to bear the sword, but would say based on Romans 12 that there is no place for the follower of Christ to function in this capacity of authority as the one bearing the sword. Biblically speaking, the wrath of the government is the wrath of God (for the record, I am not defending all government actions, time does not allow me to unpack this, but I do think God judges nations Isaiah 34-35 this will be in the book). So to say that the Christian cannot function in this capacity is in essence to say that they Christian is holier than God and this responsibility should be left the the unregenerate.

Every soldier and cop must understand the concept of being under authority. There was one such soldier who encountered Jesus in Capernaum who understood this concept and expressed it to Jesus (Luke 7:1-10). Jesus’ response to this man was, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.” This is a pretty incredible statement if you stop and consider it for a moment. The point is that when life is taken it must be under the proper authority of God and the government and right circumstances–whether you are a soldier, cop, or individual defending yourself or others.

The Christian’s response to violence. Yesterday I started preaching through Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20-49). One verse stuck out to me (v.21), “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.” Am I happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Yes and no. Yes because a man who promotes evil and destruction to many people is gone. “Relief” is probably a better word than “happy.” Many of us in the West are not fully aware of the evil this man inflicted in the world. He killed many innocent people brutally. I am sad for what he represented because another will arise in due time…there are many already doing evil to the innocent even as you read this. He is dead, but many died along the way. One peer of mine calculated that some 40 SEALs have died fighting the war against terrorism. I know a few widows and children who are left behind…Osama Bin Laden’s death doesn’t undo this or the attacks that have been committed during his lifetime. But there is pleasure in knowing that the government is following through with God’s command to bring “wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4).

There is so much more I could write on regarding this subject, but I am running out of steam and I would like to post this tonight. Regardless of your theological bent regarding pacifism, I think we all agree on Paul’s instructions to Timothy, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

We should be on our knees this day praying as Paul tells us to above. I am thankful for the sacrifice of soldiers, cops, and good Samaritans who put their lives at risk in the calling of restraining evil.

h/t: Hugh Hewitt


May 03 2011

Office Heroics from Obama

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 6:14 pm

Unbelievably, I’m actually linking to the Los Angeles Times. I can’t believe it. Really. But here it is: Osama bin Laden dead: Yes, SEALs were in on the raid, but aides hail Obama’s office bravery

According to another one of those White House briefings of reporters designed to suck up all available credit for good news, President Obama’s homeland security advisor reveals that it was a really tense time in the air-conditioned White House as unidentified U.S. Navy SEALs closed in on the world’s most wanted man after midnight a half a wohomeland security advisor john Brennan 5-2-11rld away.

“Minutes passed like days,” says John Brennan, who bravely stood with press secretary Jay Carney before reporters and TV cameras today chronicling his boss’ weekend heroics.

The heavily-armed commandos flying in a quartet of darkened Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters more than 100 miles into Pakistan were probably listening to their iPods and discussing the NFL draft.

“The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation,” said Obama’s Sherlock Holmes. So U.S. troops were prepared “for all contingencies.”

In fact, this weekend was such a tense time in the White House that Obama only got in nine holes of golf. But he still managed to deliver his joke script to the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday evening.

Sunday was, Brennan revealed to his eager audience, “probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of times in the lives of the people assembled here.” Poor poor bureaucrats. Extra Tums all around. Did someone order dinner?

There may have been a little anxiety aboard those combat choppers. Who knows? We can’t hear from them. And, as every day, anxiety in the kitchens, hearts and mind of thousands of military families who put up with the terrifying uncertainty of the dangerous deeds their loved ones have volunteered to secretly do for their country.Obama Button On Guantanamo During his 49 minute presentation Brennan did squeeze in one reference to the mission’s “very brave personnel.”

Well, that’s nice that the military got an honorable mention.


May 01 2011

Narcissism – Thy name is Obama

Category: Obama,terrorismamuzikman @ 10:14 pm

Osama Bin Laden is dead.  And If we are to believe the Narcissist-In-Chief he is the one responsible.  What shamelessness!

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Seriously, not a word about the efforts conducted by your predecessor, Mr NOTUS?  You came up with this nutty idea all by yourself?
It should be noted that no less than a dozen times our NOTUS referenced himself in his remarks this evening.
Is this about you, Obama?  Is this about scoring some sorely needed political points?
Or is this about justice, victory for The United Sates of America, and maybe a little closure for the 9/11 families?


Apr 08 2011

Redstate: Ezra Klein Supports Killing Black Babies

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 7:54 pm

This from Redstate is absolutely on target: Ezra Klein Supports Killing Black Babies|

 

What’s wrong with you, bitter clingers? Don’t you realize that a dead child is a cheap child? I mean, all dead babies cost is the funds to suck or cut them mercilessly from their mother’s womb. Presto! No more pesky expenses of a living child.

Ezra Klein, writing at the Washington Post, actually proffers that argument in favor of  taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; that abortions are cheaper for the government than having an “unintended pregnancy”. (That’s their euphemism for unborn baby killed by abortion.) His article is filled with predictable talking points, all easily disproved – the SBA List has already done so here.  Setting the horrid spin aside, his concluding paragraph is truly vile:

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children.

Did you mean among “those people”, Ezra? After all, the majority of babies aborted are minority babies. In New York City alone, nearly 60% of unborn African-American children were aborted.

Somewhat cold, Ezra? I’d go with revolting and sick, but that’s just me. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, however, would surely be proud of you.
The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger

 Fellow travelers of the abortion “rights” industry, be proud.

UPDATE:
I’ll never understand why so many self-described “diversity activists” vote for abortion promoting politicians, which describes essentially all Democrats (what else can you call a party that supports unlimited abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy before birth?).

See the link to LEARN in the blogroll on this page.


Apr 08 2011

The sky is falling. Again.

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 5:51 pm

No death benefits for military during shutdown

 

In the event of a government shutdown, the Pentagon would have to delay payments of the $100,000 death benefit that families receive if a military service member dies in the line of duty, a senior defense official said Friday,

Families would get the money eventually after the government re-opens, but they could have problems paying expenses, including for the funerals, the official said, adding that the Pentagon will reach out to various military aid agencies to help those who need it.

Another in the long line of horror stories telling us a government shutdown is going to be a disaster.  The question these stories don’t ask, of course, is, “A disaster compared to what?” 

Like driving the country over a cliff by continuing business as usual?

I haven’t heard any report of any bad outcome from a government shutdown that comes close to comparing to what will happen to the nation if the Republicans don’t stand firm on spending cuts.

 


Apr 07 2011

God and the bass players

Category: musicharmonicminer @ 11:18 am

From talkbass, we have this:

 

THE CURSE OF THE BASS PLAYER  

In the beginning there was a bass.

It was a Fender, probably a Precision, but it could have been a Jazz –
nobody knows. Anyway, it was very old …definitely pre- C.B.S.

And God looked down upon it and saw that it was good. He saw that it was
very good in fact, and couldn’t be improved on at all (though men
would later try.)

And so He let it be and He created a man to play the bass. and lo
the man looked upon the bass, which was a beautiful ‘sunburst’ red,
and he loved it. He played upon the open E string and the note
rang through the earth and reverberated throughout the firmaments
(thus reverb came to be.)

And it was good. And God heard that it was good and He smiled at his
handiwork.

Then in the course of time, the man came to slap upon the bass. And lo
it was funky. And God heard this funkiness and He said, “Go man, go.”
And it was good. And more time passed, and, having little else to
do, the man came to practice upon the bass.

And lo, the man came to have upon him a great set of chops. And he
did play faster and faster until the notes rippled like a breeze
through the heavens.

And God heard this sound which sounded something like the wind, which
had created earlier. It also sounded something like the movement
of furniture, which He hadn’t even created yet, and He was not so
pleased.

And He spoke to the man, saying “Don’t do that!” Now the man heard the
voice of God, but he was so excited about his new ability that he
slapped upon the bass a blizzard of funky notes. And the heavens
shook with the sound, and the Angels ran about in confusion. (Some of
the Angels started to dance, but that’s another story.)

And God heard this – how could He miss it – and lo He became
Bugged. And He spoke to the man, and He said, “Listen man, if I
wanted Jimi Hendrix I would have created the guitar. Stick to the
bass parts.”

And the man heard the voice of God, and he knew not to mess with it.
But now he had upon him a passion for playing fast and high.
The man took the frets off of the bass which God had created.
And the man did slide his fingers upon the fretless fingerboard and play
melodies high upon’ the neck.

And, in his excitement, the man did forget the commandment of the
Lord, and he played a frenzy of high melodies and blindingly fast licks.
And the heavens rocked with the assault and the earth shook, rattled
and rolled.

Now God’s wrath was great. And His voice was thunder as He spoke to the
man. And He said, “O.K. for you, pal. You have not heeded My word. Lo, I
shall create a soprano saxophone and it shall play higher than you
can even think of.” “And from out of the chaos I shall bring forth
the drums. And they shall play so many notes thine head shall ache,
and I shall make you to always stand next to the drummer.”

“You think you’re loud? I shall create a stack of Marshall guitar amps
to make thine ears bleed. And I shall send down upon the earth other
instruments, and lo, they shall all be able to play higher and faster
than the bass.” “And for all the days of man, your curse shall be
this: that all the other musicians shall look to you, the bass player,
for the low notes.

And if you play too high or fast all the other musicians shall say “Wow”
but really they shall hate it. And they shall tell you you’re
ready for your solo career, and find other bass players for their
bands.

And for all your days if you want to play your fancy licks you
shall have to sneak them in like a thief in the night.” “And if you
finally do get to play a solo, everyone shall leave the bandstand and go
to the bar for a drink.”

And it was so.

 


Apr 06 2011

Paul Ryan’s budget proposal

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 2:33 pm


Apr 04 2011

California Prius woes: how not to catalyze the economy

Category: economy,environmentharmonicminer @ 9:13 pm

I drive a Toyota Prius.  It needs a new catalytic converter.  If I lived in any state but California, I could buy one for around $350, and pay maybe $100-200 to have it installed.  For example, here is a website selling the item, for any state but California (notice, it says “no sales to CA”).

Since I live in California, it will cost me $2200 to have a new catalytic converter installed, because it is a dealer only item, and since Toyota has no competition for the part, they have a legal monopoly on it…  which means they can charge whatever they want, and I really have no choice.

But wait, you say, aren’t monopolies illegal in the USA?  The answer, of course, is that monopolies have mostly only flourished where the government enforces them in some way (it’s called crony capitalism, and one of the earliest examples was the building of railroads in the 19th century, based on monopolistic leases from the federal government), and California, as we’ve mentioned before, is a state dedicated to the proposition that most businesses should be driven from the state, and all paying customers should be punished for being customers, or at least for having sufficient funds to be customers.

Call it another example of why California is going the way of the dodo.  And, as a state government, it has about the same IQ.

It would be cheaper for me to drive the car to Arizona and have it repaired there, then drive it home.

I asked the service manager at Toyota why the catalytic converter costs so much.  He said it “has precious metal in it.”  Maybe, if I get a new one, I’ll sell it and retire.

This is emblematic of California’s ridiculous posture on so many issues, where it is willing to pay (AND force the citizens to pay) 10 times as much as some other states, for a tiny increment of “improvement” in the quality of the thing purchased.  Is it possible this catalytic converter is 8-10 times as good as other catalytic converters on other cars?  Really?

It is a government imposed monopoly, and the sky is the limit on how much Toyota can charge, because they are literally the only legal game in town, so says CARB.

 

 

 

 


Apr 04 2011

Do enviro-greens believe in a free lunch?

Category: societyharmonicminer @ 11:08 am

This is from New Scientist. I’m not sure how long the link will be good, so I copied the whole thing here for your perusal.

Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all

 

The sun is our only truly renewable energy source

Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels and we could do as much damage to the climate as greenhouse global warming

WITNESS a howling gale or an ocean storm, and it’s hard to believe that humans could make a dent in the awesome natural forces that created them. Yet that is the provocative suggestion of one physicist who has done the sums.

He concludes that it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are truly renewable. Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change.

Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says that efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources. His logic rests on the laws of thermodynamics, which point inescapably to the fact that only a fraction of the solar energy reaching Earth can be exploited to generate energy we can use.

When energy from the sun reaches our atmosphere, some of it drives the winds and ocean currents, and evaporates water from the ground, raising it high into the air. Much of the rest is dissipated as heat, which we cannot harness.

At present, humans use only about 1 part in 10,000 of the total energy that comes to Earth from the sun. But this ratio is misleading, Kleidon says. Instead, we should be looking at how much useful energy – called “free” energy in the parlance of thermodynamics – is available from the global system, and our impact on that.

Humans currently use energy at the rate of 47 terawatts (TW) or trillions of watts, mostly by burning fossil fuels and harvesting farmed plants, Kleidon calculates in a paper to be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. This corresponds to roughly 5 to 10 per cent of the free energy generated by the global system.

“It’s hard to put a precise number on the fraction,” he says, “but we certainly use more of the free energy than [is used by] all geological processes.” In other words, we have a greater effect on Earth’s energy balance than all the earthquakes, volcanoes and tectonic plate movements put together.

Radical as his thesis sounds, it is being taken seriously. “Kleidon is at the forefront of a new wave of research, and the potential prize is huge,” says Peter Cox, who studies climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, UK. “A theory of the thermodynamics of the Earth system could help us understand the constraints on humankind’s sustainable use of resources.” Indeed, Kleidon’s calculations have profound implications for attempts to transform our energy supply.

Of the 47 TW of energy that we use, about 17 TW comes from burning fossil fuels. So to replace this, we would need to build enough sustainable energy installations to generate at least 17 TW. And because no technology can ever be perfectly efficient, some of the free energy harnessed by wind and wave generators will be lost as heat. So by setting up wind and wave farms, we convert part of the sun’s useful energy into unusable heat.

“Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere,” says Kleidon. “Because we use so much free energy, and more every year, we’ll deplete the reservoir of energy.” He says this would probably show up first in wind farms themselves, where the gains expected from massive facilities just won’t pan out as the energy of the Earth system is depleted.

Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a factor of 100 if you take into account the depletion of free energy by wind farms. It remains theoretically possible to extract up to 70 TW globally, but doing so would have serious consequences.

Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon’s model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (Earth System Dynamics, DOI: 10.5194/esd-2-1-2011).

“This is an intriguing point of view and potentially very important,” says meteorologist Maarten Ambaum of the University of Reading, UK. “Human consumption of energy is substantial when compared to free energy production in the Earth system. If we don’t think in terms of free energy, we may be a bit misled by the potential for using natural energy resources.”

This by no means spells the end for renewable energy, however. Photosynthesis also generates free energy, but without producing waste heat. Increasing the fraction of the Earth covered by light-harvesting vegetation – for example, through projects aimed at “greening the deserts” – would mean more free energy would get stored. Photovoltaic solar cells can also increase the amount of free energy gathered from incoming radiation, though there are still major obstacles to doing this sustainably (see “Is solar electricity the answer?”).

In any event, says Kleidon, we are going to need to think about these fundamental principles much more clearly than we have in the past. “We have a hard time convincing engineers working on wind power that the ultimate limitation isn’t how efficient an engine or wind farm is, but how much useful energy nature can generate.” As Kleidon sees it, the idea that we can harvest unlimited amounts of renewable energy from our environment is as much of a fantasy as a perpetual motion machine.

Is solar electricity the answer?

A solar energy industry large enough to make a real impact will require cheap and efficient solar cells. Unfortunately, many of the most efficient of today’s thin-film solar cells require rare elements such as indium and tellurium, whose global supplies could be depleted within decades.

For photovoltaic technology to be sustainable, it will have to be based on cheaper and more readily available materials such as zinc and copper, says Kasturi Chopra of the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi.

Researchers at IBM showed last year that they could produce solar cells from these elements along with tin, sulphur and the relatively rare element selenium. These “kesterite” cells already have an efficiency comparable with commercially competitive cells, and it may one day be possible to do without the selenium.

Even if solar cells like this are eventually built and put to work, they will still contribute to global warming. That is because they convert only a small fraction of the light that hits them, and absorb most of the rest, converting it to heat that spills into the environment. Sustainable solar energy may therefore require cells that reflect the light they cannot use.

TANSTAAFL


« Previous PageNext Page »