I spent almost 35 years working directly with these issues. Though it is hard to sum up a lot of heavily nuanced issues, let me try:
Current tech:
- hydropower in the west should be considered renewable, but for historical reasons is not. And even if it were so designated, very few human endeavors have changed the natural environment the way hydropower has. (placeholder for very lengthy discussion if anyone is interested)
I have wondered if smaller scale could be less destructive but still economically viable.
- oil & gas have done so much to benefit society while damaging the environment in numerous ways. Interestingly, peak oil (that moment when hydrocarbon production has reached its' apex but due to diminishing supplies will only decline in the future) has been carefully forecast more than 20 different times - those forecasts ranged from the 1970s for peak production to some undefined point in the future. (placeholder ... blah blah blah... as for hydropower)
Yes. the changing "peak oil" date is interesting. I've suspected that the rising cost of fuel and use of alternatives (at least for electricity) resulted in less consumption.
- wind power is only economical due to tax subsidies. Two obvious ironies: First, during the hottest and coldest times, when we need electricity most for airconditioning or heating, wind velocities are very often right around zero, thus no generation. Second, for almost two decades I repeatedly asked wind power 'experts, regulators and owner/operators' what sort of reclamation bond had been set for recycling the wind turbines and towers and for site restoration and end of life. All I ever got was blank stares. (placeholder for roads, birds, blah, blah, blah... for wind power)
IMO wind power is a loser all the way around because of the reasons you have mentioned. The most heartbreaking issue is the bird mortality. I grew up in the San Jose area - we'd go out on Altamont Pass and find carcasses.
- hard rock, or unconsolidated sediment mining in the arid west has never, ever, in any place restored environmental damages created by mining, though the societal benefits are usually considered by decision makers to be worth it. (Insert very long placeholder with thousands of specific examples of mining impacts)
What? You mean those pretty scenes on the TV ads put out by the Nevada Mining Association are propaganda? (snark)
- nuclear power: good thing if you can figure out what to do with the waste -- which is still awaiting a solution.
- solar - I don't know enough about this industry to really talk about it.
About a 15 year lifespan on PV panels - ironically about the same amount of time it would take to recoup your investment on a self contained system. It is an expensive way to produce electricity. No recycling of the panels currently. The panels need to be washed - a problem in the desert. The largest solar facility (Ivanpah/ Bright Energy) is not PV but reflectors that concentrate sunlight (and fry birds in flight) to heat a substance in a tower which creates steam to drive a turbine They also use natural gas.
Bonus: Most folk do not know that cement production is responsible for ~8% of all CO2 emissions by humans.
I had heard but promptly forgot that fact.
Bottom line: let's enjoy what remains, try to protect what we can, and do a bit of restoration if at all possible. Other than that, hold on tight and try not to get thrown off this crazy modern societal merry go round we have all had a share in building and growing.
And that is it. This is the culture we have which is why I become frustrated when someone demands perfection - such as I shouldn't complain about automobiles and fuel since I use one. But we need to do better if we want to enjoy, or even simply live in the world we have.
