Let’s suppose there are only two energy
sources. We’ll call them Energy Source A
and Energy Source B. Pound for pound –
if that makes any sense since these two are very different – you can get ten
times as much energy from A than B. A
lot of people would then say, “We should use Energy Source A then,” without
looking any further into the matter.
But those who do look further note a few
things. A vital component of Energy
Source A – the fuel, a special metal needed for the power plant, something – is
located at random areas around the globe.
This means that if your country didn’t win the geography lottery and has
this vital component, you have to import it.
Meaning that foreign elements could disrupt your supply of it. Also, some countries may go to war to secure
a supply of it, only to disrupt the global trading of it. On the other hand, you could set up an Energy
Source B power plant pretty much anywhere.
Does the added cost of securing the supply of the vital component of
Energy Source A diminish its superiority?
Also, the normal size of an Energy Source
A power plant supplies enough power for an entire city. You could build a massive Energy Source B
power plant to supply power to a city, but you could also build smaller plants
that supplies power to a suburb, or a handful of neighborhoods in the
city. Some people would say that Energy
Source A is clearly better because you can supply more people with more power
from one plant. But what if something
goes wrong, such as a mechanical failure or even a terrorist attack? If it happens to the A power plant, you knock
out power to an entire city. But if it
happened at a B power plant, you just knock out power to a few
neighborhoods.
Given these scenarios, is Energy Source A
still better than B?
