Letters to the Editor

Letter: Engineering renewable power

Yet another useless commentary regarding Alaska’s transition to renewable energy appeared in the ADN on Wednesday (“Alaska should plug its carbon leak before bailing out the boat”). Once again, the piece was heavy on rhetoric but lacked viable solutions. The disappointing aspect of this piece was that it was written not by the usual run-of-the-mill climate activist, but by a Ph.D candidate in engineering.

I would encourage the writer to perform and publish a feasibility study on how this transition is to be accomplished in Alaska. What mix of viable renewable energy sources will be required? Are hydroelectric and small-scale nuclear parts of the solution? How many solar panels will be needed, and how many wind turbines? What contribution will tidal energy contribute? Most importantly, how much will this cost and what is the timeline for this transition?

Also needed is a technology readiness matrix. What technologies are available now and what needs to be developed to achieve the goal? It’s not enough to say that better batteries will be needed — technology development needs to be compatible with the overall project timeline, and the cost of development needs to be accounted for. Good engineers develop viable solutions — not engage in pointing out problems that someone else needs to solve.

— Jim Mills

Wasilla

Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.

ADVERTISEMENT