Tim has already responded on wind power - it is the most affordable of the alternatives being pushed. There's a big reliability problem though and I would add only certain sections of the country are suitable for windpower. I've seen maps of windpower potential and the places with high potential usually aren't real close to our major population centers. Can't just put up windmills anywhere and get cheap reliable power.
And of course, as windpower is adopted it will be attacked on the same type of NIMBY and environmental grounds conventional power sources are. Windpower on a massive scale will kill birds, particularly soaring raptor types and seabirds (if placed offshore or near shore) and migrating birds as well as bats. And liberals aren't going to want to see windmills offshore MA, CA, and the Pacific NW anymore than oil platforms. I guarantee the liberals and greens will attack this full force when the windpower industry gets big enough. We're seeing signs of this already.
Next, do you really believe the green lobby would allow hundred square mile solar farms anywhere in this country if and when it becomes economically competitive? Can you find a hundred square mile plot anywhere that won't have an allegedly threatened lizard or something? Sheesh, a couple thousand acres of arctic is objectionable to liberal greens. IF we ever get the right to drill off the west, east, or FL coasts, the activity will likely have to be 50 miles offshore or so.
There is also a toxic materials problem with solar power that will need to be dealt with:
lowtechmagazine.com
How much toxic materials are involved in creating a 100 square mile solar farm? And what will be done with those toxic materials when solar cells are replaced? Put 'em in Yucca mountain? Not hardly. And no place else either. I foresee decades of lawsuits brought by green lobbies. Similar to what we see over refineries, coal plants, nuclear plants. BTW an entirely electrical industry based on solar or wind power is going to require (in addition to back up power stations) massive energy storage needs - that means batteries, doesn't it? And do batteries also have the similar toxic materials issues? Yes.
With government investment or mandates, there are higher short term costs to the economy
Why will they be short term? You're assuming we'll have breakthroughs that will make solar competitive economically with conventional and that the environmental objections I mentioned earlier will be overcomeable and cheap.
BTW solar power is, like wind power, best suited for certain parts of the country - and most of our major population centers aren't located in solar rich places. There's also a reliability issue due to weather and due to that long dark period we have every 24 hours.
I believe that power plants powered by wind or solar will have to have conventional backups. Wind farms are now backed up by gas power plants (see article below).
and the benefit is that we will get there faster
We're never going to get "there" - by that I mean we'll never have an energy industry that is environmentally perfect and economically cheap w/no environmental tradeoffs. There will still be massive environmental problems with solar and wind.
Furthermore, investments driven by politicians will be doled based on political considerations, not based on sound business or technological concerns. Why are we subsidizing corn based ethanol while discouraging the import of sugar-made ethanol? Politics. American corn growers have more clout than Brazilian sugar growers, thats why. Why do military contractors put plants in the states and districts of powerful legislators? The same reason government aid to solar
and we will lock in many of the patents that will allow us to capture the bulk of the wealth as the world converts to sustainable energy sources.
Really? Suppose we invest tens of trillions of dollars and Japan or Israel or Denmark invents something radically better 5 years later? There isn't going to be a perfect solution that can't be improved on. We're still making technical advances in every technology we have. No reason to think solar or whatever will be different.
Or if you are a die-hard laissez fare economist, then no government involvement means we'll still get there as solar reaches coal parity and electric cars reach scale and costs come down
If its going to happen, that s/b the way it happens.
, but it will happen a lot slower
Fine. We have conventional power sources (including nuclear) we're using now - we know the costs - both economic and environmental - and they're manageable. We certainly aren't running out of uranium or coal.
and we may not own most of the patents,
Patents aren't perpetually valuable. First off patents only last a certain period by law. Second, patents become decrease in value as new advances are made. There is no final technology. I've already pointed this out.
the wealth from all the sustainable energy sectors will go to other countries
If the US government owned valuable patents, it would give them away. The pressure to do so for idealistic reasons - both economic fairness and environmental advancement - would be overwhelming.
So which camp do you want to be in?
I'll take the free market camp over the wasteful government boondoggle camp. Expecting the government to act wisely is foolish.
---------------------------------
Is wind power a lot of hot air?
Connexion edition: April 2008
Wind turbines are a contentious issue dividing rural France.
.......
According to figures released by France Energie using wind turbines to produce 25% of electricity would reduce gas emissions by 20%. However this energy cannot be stored, is intermittent and must be added to by other energy sources. Some environmentalists dispute these figures and say wind turbines cause a blot on the landscape.
President of the environmental company, Fédération Environnement Durable, Jean-Louis Butré, has labelled the drive for wind energy “a strategic error on a national scale.” He says wind energy actually increases demands on thermal energy reserves.
He said: “Wind turbines only work 20% of the time so we need to have back-up energy - in France this comes from thermal energy and natural gas, in Germany it comes from burning fossil fuels.
“So the more we rely on wind energy, the more we are actually producing gases which contribute to the ozone effect.”
Mr Butré believes the cost of wind energy is prohibitive.
“Wind energy costs two to three times the price of other forms of electricity, which would result in people paying an extra €200 or €300 for each electricity bill.
The homes of residents living near a turbine may also be worth 30% less.
“France is a country which relies on tourists yet turbines are ruining our landscape.”
Germany, currently the leader in wind energy and considering a ban on nuclear energy, has just ordered the construction of more than 20 power stations using coal as an energy source, as a back-up energy supply.
.....
Wind generated electricity is more expensive to produce, costing between €40 and €55 per megawatt hour compared to coal and gas which cost €30 and €45 per megawatt hour to produce.
The cheapest energy form is nuclear, costing just €26 to produce.
.....
connexionfrance.com |
