Article by Genesis

Introduction

“Eat today, feed tomorrow” reads the title of a 2021 animated Chobani advertisement which aesthetically depicts a utopic future filled with green energy and automation where vegetation and nature thrive.[1] The art, reminiscent of whimsical animated films from Studio Ghibli, is not only considered part of a creative genre but also a social movement known as “Solarpunk.” The harmonious depiction of technology and the natural world that Solarpunk promotes gives a sense of hope and optimism against the dystopian worldview that makes it seem like the end is nigh. Ideas on how to make the vision of Solarpunk a reality vary among proponents, but the general approach consists of the innovation of eco-friendly technologies or a wider use of small-scale and environmentally sustainable technologies known as “appropriate technology”.[2] Instead of a life dominated by cyberspace or virtual reality that the science fiction Cyberpunk genre exudes, one is meant to imagine a future of solar water heaters on every rooftop and dirigibles soaring silently overhead. Sounds amazing, doesn’t it? While we can certainly dream about flying on propeller driven bicycles and minimizing the high technologization of our world, the Solarpunk movement distracts from the harsh reality of where technological progress is taking us and its detriment to the planet. It is time to remove the rose-tinted glasses of technological development and aim towards an effective solution that does not perpetuate, but puts an end to its destructive impulse.  

The Problem With Progress

The word punk in Solarpunk is meant to emphasize its oppositional quality as a radical movement resisting the polluting and environmentally degrading infrastructure of our current industrial world. The movement promotes the installation and use of environmental infrastructure such as renewable energy as a form of resistance. The impact of this resistance is exemplified in an article titled, “Solarpunk: Notes toward a manifesto,” which highlights the struggles of public utilities in keeping up with the demand of rooftop solar.[2] While such a struggle exists, it hardly challenges the prevailing oppressive system that we are currently under. The move towards solar panels, wind turbines, and hydropower that we are seeing in multiple countries is not indicative of a move in the right direction or a change of values. These infrastructures (however harmless they may seem) are, in effect, used to uphold the exploitive energy-intensive world industrial system. Their advocacy is emblematic of the "myth of progress," believing that technological advancements can solve current crises. This myth is considered vital for the functioning of our technological world. Actual opposition and resistance rests in the rejection of this fallacy.

When we observe the trajectory of technological progress we notice an increasing divide between humans and nature, with technology operating independently outside of human control. Solarpunk hopes to resolve this through the innovation of “environmental” technologies and expansive use of appropriate or small-scale technology that is said to be simple enough that people can manage directly and on a local level. The universalization of this presents a large challenge as it is competing against a world dependent on large-scale integrated systems that keep industries and networks running. To use a globalized system such as the internet requires other large-scale systems like the power grid, subsea cables, and data centers to support its overall function.  The supply chain and the distribution of goods is also heavily reliant on mass transportation.

The same can be said for renewable energy such as solar and wind which require industrial manufacturing for infrastructure. Renewable energy is an example of a supported technology sold to be eco-friendly and positive for the environment. Despite these claims, renewable energy still fails to bring us any closer to nature, but instead is used to keep these interconnected systems going. Evidence that the “Eco” part of renewable energy matters little in a technology-driven society can be found in how environmentally destructive renewable energy is in and of itself.

Green Isn’t Really Green

The technologies that turn sun and wind into grid electricity involve very large volumes of rare metals, solvents, plastics, and other industrial products that have substantial carbon footprints of their own. The manufacture of most solvents and plastics involves the generation of a great deal of toxic waste, most of which we find remains in the biosphere.[3] While recycling the materials from solar panels sounds good in theory, the process is much less feasible in practice.

Companies are usually interested in only a single material from solar panels: metal; However, solar panels are primarily made out of glass, which is considered a low-value material,  while the smaller items — such as the silicon solar cells — rarely find a second.[4] [5] The cost to break down solar panels and extract materials also comes into play regarding recycling decisions, and it is more than what the raw materials themselves are worth. It costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel, but sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2, thus most companies are uninterested in recycling solar panels in the first place.[4] Solar panels create 300 times more waste than nuclear plants, and governments of poor and developing nations are often not equipped to deal with an influx of toxic solar waste. According to the UN, “somewhat between 60 and 90 percent of electronic waste is illegally traded and dumped in poor nations”.[6]

Another issue we see occurring is the vast amount of land used in creating solar farms due to their low energy density; some of these stretching over 50 square kilometers, covering mountaintops.[7][8] If the United States were to try to generate all of the energy it uses with renewables, 25 percent to 50 percent of all land in the United States would be required. By contrast, today’s energy system requires just 0.5 percent of land in the United States.[9] If solar energy is to replace a large majority of energy sources then we can expect solar panels to progressively invade the habitats of living things, depriving them of sunlight, and therefore killing most of them.[10] Solar also has hard physical limits. The achievable power density of solar farms is 50 watts of electricity per square meter. By contrast, the power density of natural gas and nuclear plants ranges from 2,000 to 6,000 watts per square meter.[11]

It is not just solar, but the maximum efficiency of wind turbines is only 59.3 percent, requiring 100 percent backup. As with solar power, a wind farm also requires a substantial amount of land, roughly 450 times more than a natural gas power plant.[12] Wind turbines create a lot of waste as well once they are no longer operable.  Experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind-turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years.[13]

Wind farms also present problems for wildlife. Migratory bird and bat species are vulnerable to collisions because of the turbines. This is especially true for offshore wind farms which have larger turbines than their land counterparts. Bats typically migrate over land, but some species such as red bats have been detected flying over the open ocean. Research suggests that long-distance dispersing bats have the highest collision rates compared with other bats.[14] Electric power cables used in offshore wind farms are sources of electromagnetic fields. Bats as well as aquatic life such as whales and sea turtles, can detect electric and/or magnetic fields and use naturally occurring fields to support essential life functions, which consist of navigating and searching for prey.[14] Essential life functions of these animals can be disrupted by human-induced fields from wind power infrastructure.

The environmental impacts and limitations of solar and wind energy are evident, but because the solarpunk ideal depends on the progress of green energy, some solarpunk idealists have insisted on alternative energy sources as the solution. Algae biofuel, lithium ion batteries, and even nuclear power as a transitory role to cleaner energy are among some of the solutions that have been proposed or supported by advocates within the community. But while such alternatives exist, they still tend to suffer the same problems that are inherent to industry.

Oceanic algae is beneficial because it grows rapidly and can produce higher yields of biofuel per acre compared to traditional crops. In spite of this, the infrastructure and resources needed to process the algae into usable fuel have high energy and cost overheads. A life cycle assessment of microalgae biofuels was conducted in a 2023 study, which found that when infrastructure is included, microalgae-derived biofuels are not yet favorable over petroleum-derived fuels in terms of climate change impacts over 100 years.[15] The results showed that electricity and infrastructure were major sources of environmental impacts. The dewatering and drying process of microalgae biomass consumes 89% of energy needed for biodiesel production and accounts for 70% or 75% of the total process cost.[16]  Alternative drying options include solar drying, spray drying, and freeze drying; however, these are all expensive and incompatible with cost-competitive biofuels.[17] Given the volume of algae required to fuel modern energy systems, a significant amount of energy would most likely need to be supplied to accelerate the drying process. Algal cultivation necessitates maintaining optimal growing conditions to ensure maximal lipid production. This involves controlling nutrient availability, water temperature, pH, and light exposure - a balance difficult to maintain on a large scale.[18] These challenges of algae biomass have become significant barriers to its commercial viability. This is attested by energy and biotech companies such as ExxonMobile, Solazyme, and Sapphire Energy whose efforts to produce algae-based biofuel have been  largely unsuccessful.[18]

As for lithium ion batteries, unfortunately no battery is 100% sustainable. Lithium ion batteries require the extraction of raw materials like cobalt, metal salts, and lithium to be manufactured.[19] Mining of the raw materials could be reduced by recycling the batteries instead, but this process has less of a positive impact than people realize. Because the demand for battery metals is so high, it is going to be a long time before recycling makes any appreciable dent in the need for mining. The International Energy Agency projects that by 2040 recycling might cut the need for mining battery metals by only 10%.[19] The disassembling process of batteries is also very complicated. The cells are often held together with tough glues making them difficult to take apart. Pyrometallurgy is a process used by many recyclers to extract the coveted metals by melting down the batteries and burning off plastic separators. This process is energy-intensive, emits toxic gasses and can not recover some valuable minerals, including lithium, at all.[20] In only rare cases is material directly recovered from recycling of lithium-ion cells of sufficient quality to be immediately re-used in battery production. In most cases it needs to be further purified in order to be effectively re-utilised.

Between 10-30% of batteries are considered unusable.[21] This is because they fail quality control testing either at the cell factory or the battery assembly plant. Batteries also are prone to charge losses, deterioration over time, and a variety of operating challenges. Researchers at MIT and Argonne National Lab conducted a study which found steeply diminishing returns when a lot of battery storage is added to the grid. They concluded that coupling battery storage with renewable plants is a “weak substitute” for large, flexible coal or natural-gas combined-cycle plants, the type that can be tapped at any time, run continuously, and vary output levels to meet shifting demand throughout the day. Lithium ion battery storage can compensate for second/minute and some hourly intermittency, but it does not provide a remedy for day-to-day, weekly, or seasonal intermittency.[22] These challenges make it highly unlikely that batteries will contribute to a circular “sustainable” economy. 

By many definitions, nuclear energy is not renewable. It is generally considered environmentally-friendly only because it does not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions. When taking into account the whole process of generating Nuclear energy, including the amount of spent radioactive fuel, it is much less green than it appears. Mining uranium ore, the nonrenewable resource that powers nuclear plants, has led to contamination of surrounding waters and lands.[23] After the processing of uranium ore, the residual material remains undissolved in the solid mill tailings containing about 85% of the original radioactivity.[24] In 2022, at least 84% of uranium mill sites in the US were found to have polluted groundwater, and nearly 75% still had either no liner or only a partial liner between mill waste and the ground, leaving them susceptible to leaking pollution into groundwater.[25] Radioactive waste has been an unresolved issue that has been of major concern with the use of nuclear energy.  Despite progressing technology, there is not yet a permanent, risk-averting method to handle, store, and dispose of the radioactive nuclear waste that is produced as a by-product. Roughly 80,000 metric tons of radioactive waste has been generated by nuclear power plants in the United States and is being stored at 75 reactor sites across more than 30 states.[26] The number of radioactive waste is projected to rise to 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades.[27]

The continuation of “renewable” energy technologies, despite their problems,  will continue to be embraced by those who have succumbed to the “myth of progress.” While solar panels have their drawbacks right now, so their thinking goes, surely science will find a solution to make them compatible with nature. But as we have shown, the technological system, driven by an insatiable need for energy and resources, does not truly care about the prosperity of nature, but only its own needs.  It would be dangerous to let the technological system damage the environment further in the hopes that all will be figured out in the future, because this runs the risk of nature entering into an unrecoverable state.

It is foreseeable that new technologies will come to be promoted as more environmentally friendly, but as long as the technological system as a whole survives, we can expect it to keep us detached from nature and to continue exploiting the natural world. It would then be foolish to rely on technological progress to find ways out of the environmental destruction that it is exacerbating.

Simple Tech, Not So Simple

Solarpunk proponents in favor of going back to more simple technologies fail to take institutional and political factors into account when it comes to the applicability of their “Appropriate Technology.” Any idealistic attempt to scale-back on large scale systems would soon face the impossibly harsh realities of being essentially powerless against entrenched advocates of the dominant technologies of agribusiness, large private utilities, multinational construction and manufacturing firms, and the military-industrial complex, all of which have a vested interest in perpetuating and elaborating the large technological systems already in place.[30] Engineers and chemists are also professionally biased towards highly sophisticated technology. It enables them to design, create, and improve systems and products more efficiently and effectively, which is considered pivotal for industries.

This is exemplified by the “Appropriate Technology Movement” which gained a sufficient amount of traction during the 1970s. The movement had an identifiable literature and an extensive network of organization, projects, and field experiments yet it failed to invoke the transformation of industrial and technological practice in most countries in accordance with  its principles.[28] Despite initiatives at the state level and by President Jimmy Carter, there was a lack of political commitment to changing the economic subsidies.[29]

While aspects of the Solarpunk movement may appeal to some political leaders, there is no guarantee that such policies would stay in place even if they were implemented. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, the federal Community Services were terminated leaving the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) without institutional or financial support.[29] This makes putting one's hope in political decisions very risky. There is an even less probability that such policies could be universalized. Countries favor sophisticated technology because they produce high quality goods, speed up diagnosis in case of breakdowns, simplify repair and cut down operating costs. Machines are also easier to manage than workers.[30]

Therefore there exists a lack of political initiative to get manufacturers and users interested in labor-intensive alternative technologies, especially as the choice to use or reject newer technologies becomes increasingly limited. An attempt to start a broader movement around solarpunk by congregating with those who share the same sentiment and building a small community would also fail to prevail against the imposition of the technological system as long as it is allowed to keep advancing. The system itself with its large interconnectivities must be brought to an end or else we risk the loss of our autonomy and the natural environment.

Conclusion

The bitter truth is this: the progress of technology is antithetical to the prosperity of nature. The former will continue to dominate the latter in order to sustain itself. The technological system is threatened by anything that opposes its advancement or expansion–anything that does must be kept under ruthless control or else suppressed, even if this comes at a huge cost to nature or human freedom. While the vision of a future where humans live harmoniously with the natural world and sustainable technologies seems ideal, the fact is that this can never come to fruition within a system whose processes are supported by high-tech infrastructure and interconnectivity. Technologies marketed as “green” are used to keep these structures running and still impose harm to the environment. Political response is unreliable for bringing about significant change to these issues, because policies are always subject to alteration, and countries are more likely to support large-scale or sophisticated technology since it is deemed most efficient. It is time we become serious about the preservation of our planet and reject the propaganda of technological progress and fanciful utopian ideals which only distract from the issue. The technological system is inherently exploitative and destructive, and it must be stopped or else we face a grave future.

 
___________

NOTES:

[1] Chobani. (2021). Eat today, feed tomorrow. [video]. Youtube. Retrieved from, https://youtu.be/MS-sJQkr0H4?si=iBk_T2y1_eACCY5v

[2] Flynn, A. (2014). Solarpunk: Notes Toward a Manifesto. Project Hieroglyph. Retrieved from, https://hieroglyph.asu.edu/2014/09/solarpunk-notes-toward-a-manifesto/

[3] Greer, M. J. (2017). The Retro Future: Looking to the Past to Reinvent the Future. New Society Publishers.

[4] Atasu, A., Duran, S., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2021). The Dark Side of Solar Power. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from, https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power

[5] De Socio, M. (2022). Solar panels have come a long way. Recycling them has not. GreenBiz. Retrieved from, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/solar-panels-have-come-long-way-recycling-them-has-not

[6] "Illegally Traded and Dumped E-Waste Worth up to $19 Billion Annually Poses Risks to Health, Deprives Countries of Resources, Says UNEP Report," United Nations Environment Program, May 12, 2015, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/illegally-traded-and-dumped-e-waste-worth-19-billion-annually-poses

[7] Guo, J. (2017). Aerial view of new solar farm in Shanxi, China. The China Project. Retrieved from, http://thechinaproject.com/2017/08/15/solar-farm-shanxi-china/

[8] Voiland, A. (2022). Soaking Up Sun in the Thar Desert. NASA: Earth Observatory. Retrieved from, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149442/soaking-up-sun-in-the-thar-desert

[9] Smil, Vaclav, Power Density: A Key to Understanding Energy Sources and Uses, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2016, p. 247.

[10] Kaczynski, J. T. (2016). Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How (2nd ed). Fitch & Madison.

[11] Smil, pp. 52-57, 199.

[12] John van Zalk and Paul Behrens, "The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the US," Energy Policy, Vol. 123, 2018, pp. 83-91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023.

[13] Stella, C. (2019). Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy. Harvest Public Media. Retrieved from, https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy

[14] Clark, E. C., Comay, B. L., Keating-Bitonti, C. et al (2024). Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind on the Marine Ecosystem and Associated Species: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service

[15] Bradley, T., Rajaeifar, M.A., Kenny, A. et al. (2023). Life cycle assessment of microalgae-derived biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02140-6

[16] Malcata X., Pôjo V., & Tavares T. F. (2021). Processing Methodologies of Wet Microalga Biomass Toward Oil Separation: An Overview. Molecules. Jan 26, 26(3)

doi: 10.3390/molecules26030641

[17]   Kinchin, C., Wahlen, B.D., Wendt, L.M. et al. (2019). Assessing the stability and techno-economic implications for wet storage of harvested microalgae to manage seasonal variability. Biotechnol Biofuels 12, 80 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1420-0

[18] Gordon-Smith, H. (2023). Analyzing the Reality of Algae Biofuels: Why Have They Failed to Take Over? Linkedin. Retrieved from
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/analyzing-reality-algae-biofuels-why-have-failed-take-gordon-smith

[19] O’Connor, C. M. (2024). What’s so hard about building a circular battery economy Latitude Media. Retrieved from

https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/whats-so-hard-about-building-a-circular-battery-economy

[20] Chrobak, U. (2022). What will it take to recycle millions of worn-out EV batteries? Knowable Magazine. Retrieved from https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/technology/2022/what-will-it-take-to-recycle-ev-batteries

[21] Fernley, M. (2020). Battery recycling and raw materials supply - dispelling a key myth. Linkedin. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/battery-recycling-raw-materials-supply-dispelling-key-matt-fernley

[22] Temple, J. (2018). The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

[23] Roche, P., Thuillier, B., Laponche, B. et al. (2018). The Global Crises of Nuclear Waste. Greenpeace France.

[24] Occupational Radiation Protection in the Uranium Mining and Processing Industry. (2020). International Atomic Energy Agency.

[25] Mierjeski, A., Olalde, M., & Simon, M. (2022). The Cold War Legacy Lurking in U.S. Groundwater. Propublica

[26] Nuclear Energy Isn’t the Solution to Climate Catastrophe. (2020). Food & Water Watch.

[27] Ghosh, P. (2020). Nuclear Power 10. Natural Resources Defense Council.

[28] Willoughby, K. (2019). Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement. Routledge Taylor & Francis London & New York.  

[29] Pursell, C. (1993). The Rise and Fall of the Appropriate Technology Movement in the United States, 1965- 1985. Technology and Culture, The Johns Hopkins University Press and the Society for the History of Technology, 34(3).

[30] Bhagavan, R. M. (1979). A Critique of “Appropriate Technology” For Undeveloped Countries. The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 48

Copyright © 2024 by Wilderness Front LLC. All Rights Reserved.