Renewables are great - for powering fantasies

The Dallas Morning News ^ | 3-24-02 | James Glassman

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Wind. Sun. Hydrogen. They are odorless, tasteless, invisible and abundant. And they can be harnessed to generate electricity, power cars and heat homes. So, hey, let's stop dallying! Replace those shameful fossil fuels with clean renewables. What is taking so long?

That was the gist of a series of passionate editorials in The Dallas Morning News during the past several weeks. Read them, and you might wonder what is wrong with those blockhead politicians and energy executives.

But there is a reason that renewables, despite a history of generous government subsidies stretching back to 1982, haven't made a dent in the dominance of oil, gas and coal – which together account for 85 percent of the energy used in this country. The reason is cost. As energy sources, wind, sun and hydrogen are hugely expensive and inefficient. Fossil fuels aren't.

In fact, thanks to new technology and better management, oil and gas companies – many of them, of course, based in Texas – have figured out how to bring fossil fuels out of the ground and refine them more and more cheaply. That is good, not bad. Abundant, low-cost energy is the key to prosperity, and prosperity is the key to cleaner air and water, as numerous studies, including a survey of 117 countries by the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, have shown.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and places like Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico have tremendous potential for oil and gas exploration, which now has minimal impact on the environment. Yes, there is a lot of wind and sun here, too – not to mention hydrogen. The problem is turning those fuels into usable power.

Let's not deceive ourselves. At this point in history, renewables aren't a serious source of energy. While we should encourage more research, we shouldn't succumb to the wishful fantasy that the wind or the sun will power America's toasters.

Scientists Mike Oliver and John Hospers, writing in the American Enterprise magazine, use an apt analogy: "There are untold millions of tons of gold in the earth's oceans. Why aren't we taking this gold from the seas? It is the dilution that stops us. If we can't obtain at least $8 worth of gold from a ton of water, we will go broke from the costs of extraction."

Wind, solar and hydrogen are examples of dilution in the extreme. Wind is so intermittent and tough to harness that a wind farm that could produce 1,000 megawatts from thousands of those ungainly propeller-driven turbines ("eagle choppers," as some wags call them) would extend, according to Environmental Protection Agency research, over 400 square miles. A similar coal plant would take up just 10 acres.

Sure, the sun is bright in the California desert, and that is why a solar plant was built at Barstow a few years ago. It occupied 75 acres and cost $200 million to build, yet it generated only $1.7 million worth of energy a year – until the companies and government agencies that subsidized it shut it down.

The United States now generates 8 percent of its power from a category that the Energy Information Administration calls "renewables." But nearly all of that power comes from water and "biomass," mainly wood. Wind and solar each represents less than 1 percent – not of the total power but of the power generated by renewables!

Denmark, as The Morning News editorials pointed out, gets "a remarkable 13 percent" of its electricity from the wind. True, but the real story, reported earlier this month by the Economist magazine, is that Denmark has soured on the experiment, and "plans for three offshore wind power parks have been dropped" by its new government.

Similarly, The Morning News wants to subsidize solar cells "in the manner of Los Angeles Power and Water." But The Washington Post reported last year that this noble experiment to make Los Angeles the "solar capital" of the world, with 100,000 roofs covered by solar electric panels, has been a dismal failure. In the first year of the program, only 40 homes adopted the panels, despite subsidies averaging $8,000 per family.

Why? According to The Post, "In the real world, most systems don't pay for themselves in a few years, as some advocates claim, but take 20 years or more to return their initial cost in the form of reduced utility bills."

The truth is that, at least for the next few decades, renewables like wind, solar and hydrogen fuel cells will be boutique sources of energy – curiosities available only to the few who want to pay the exorbitant cost or to those who live in states where politicians are willing to socialize those costs by making all taxpayers shoulder them.

The economic rewards for making wind, solar and hydrogen commercially viable are immense, and many companies – often with government aid – have sunk billions into the attempt. But the science and technology just aren't there. We don't need more subsidies and special breaks for the renewables industry.

Nor should the fossil fuels that dominate the energy scene be demonized. The companies that find them and turn them into electricity, gasoline and diesel fuel aren't owed any favors, but neither should they be denigrated or embarrassed. They are fueling the main engine of the world's economic growth – growth that leads inexorably to cleaner air and water, better health and more comfortable and productive lives. Texans should know that story better than anyone else, and they should be proud.

James K. Glassman is host of the TechCentralStation website (www.TechCentralStation.com) and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

[lewislynn]

Renewable Energy Systems -USA- Inc.,

"The Texas market has boomed this year as a direct result of the state legislation signed by then Governor Bush...dictating that within the next ten years 3% of all Texas energy should come from renewable energy sources."

[Wonder Warthog]

"Do you have knowledge or experience with which to convince the skeptical that your statements are anything more than a pipe dream? Most of these alternate energy sources belong in that category."

"Mr. cod"'s arguments, while in themselves factually correct, actually are strawmen. The hydrogen economy is NOT talking about liquid hydrogen. Transmission and storage will be as compressed gases, not liquid. Sure, hydrogen-air mixtures become flammable at 4%--but we already know how to work with hydrogen--thousands of laboratories do it every day (running gas chromatographs with flame ionization detectors)--working with hydrogen is actually LESS dangerous than filling your automobile up with gasoline. The "invisible flame" problem is fixed in a manner analogous the the current use of natural gas (natural gas is odorless--so we ADD a chemical which has an odor--for hydrogen we ADD a trace chemical which emits light in the visible spectrum if there is a flame--a few ppm of benzene vapor will probably do the trick). Using hydrogen safely is NOT rocket science--despite Snope's assertions to the contrary.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Forget the middleman and go directly to all-electric vehicles as a thought experiment. No longer can you load-balance with, e.g., hydrogen production. The extra generating capacity you would need to supply all of the vehicles in the U.S. is 500,000 megawatts, roughly 500 brand-new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants. With hydrogen, the situation is WORSE, since electrolyzers run at ~70% efficiency (tops) meaning you would need ~714,000 megawatts."

As usual, wrong on all counts. There is NO battery with the necessary amperage storage--which is why all the emphasis on fuel cells. It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source). Which would you rather pay for---500 new nuclear power plants, or a third world war? I think the new energy infrastructure would be a LOT cheaper, personally.

[lucysmom]

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the use of methane gas. Methane gas is produced as a by product in sewage processing plants. The gas is now used in a limited way to generate power need to run some plants. Certainly this is a renewable resource, particularly in place like Washington D.C.

During the energy crisis last year in California some dairy farmers began producing their own electricity using the methane gas produced in their slurry ponds. The surplus was sold. Apparently this was so profitable that one farmer said "it looks like we may have been milking the wrong end of the cow".

[FreedomPoster]

It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source).

Huh? Anytime I see folks start to talk about "MORE than 100% (electrically) efficient", I have major heartburn. Ever heard of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics? These are not man's laws, to be sidestepped or ignored with the help of sharp lawyers at $350/hour. No, these are, so far, immutable laws of nature, and if you've truly figured out a way around them, I want a piece of that action.

Also, care to address the energy density issues (see post #38) with compressed hydrogen storage for automotive use? Or are we going to be expect to refuel every 25 miles or so?

[zog]

-hmmm. Loggd on, saw the article. Once again I'm being told the solar power here doesn't work. Put it this way, I get a lot more solar power out of my system for the energy used to create it than all the tv sets ever built. That's if you can even understand that point. That might be difficult, but you can struggle with the idea. We can use energy to make devices to extract/convert more energy, or we can just keep building toys. And I've also had neighbors fuel powered generators just breakdown and not work when they needed juice, too, when the grid was down, which in some areas of the country happens quite a bit..

IMO, there is no one single "solution", you do a site survey, decide which of the alternatives makes the most sense for your locale, and start building the system, it can be from very small to whole house sized, anything you want. The "cost" is also a factor when you wish to be independent and not be tied as much to some politicised monopoly cartel. But, if that's what you dig, if that's your political scene to be part of the corporate/governmental bribery scandals, then go for it. Keep waiting for this "they" guy to do something about 'energy", ity's certainly not the official approved 'conservative way" to actually personally DO anything about it. I'm so glad that point has been cleared up for me, I forgot we have to be a herd animal to be part of the clique, can't possibly ever "do" anything that's not approved by...whomever this offical "conservative" leader is. Didn't know that me producing my own energy and having it paid off was so terrible a political sin. Didn't know that an open ended lease with zero price or delivery guarantees was the 'approved' contractural method of getting energy. Glad that got cleared up by this article and thread comments so far. Silly me, I shoulda bought a 35 inch teevee instead. What was I thinking? I'll do ten "let's rolls" and ten " ditto maha rushies" as pennace.

And subsidies? Gimme a break, nuke, coal, oil, centralised power with all it's land seizures, tax breaks, laws and regulations passed making a certain 'form" of electricity 120Ac-the household "norm" under reguilations, etc, etc, over the past century, complete and total government involvement from federal to local in full collusion with corporate cartels, is way more than the combined total of all the "alternative" methods. Hundreds of billions of dollars so far and counting. Subsidised, government involvement, complete with the added benefit of having bribery and scandal run most of those places. Go ahead, make the claim that there has been no 'governmental involvement" and taxpayer money in centralised energy. Prove it. yep, nukes, not one penny subsidised. uh huh. coal plants, never heard of it. Oil plants, naw, we don't support hundreds of billions in military efforts with tax payer money to keep the mideast oil flowing, that can't be called a subsidy, it's just money going for something, a subsidy is when your superiors in government and on internet forums CALL it a subsidy, then it's "official". if they don't call it a subsidy, then it doesn't exist.

You don't have to do either/or, that's another fallacy. it's just silly. You can get a decent amount from not that many panels, great for day to day use and to have a guaranteed supply, see no reason this is such a threat to folks. I mean, it's taken as a threat here. Look out! them solar panels is sneeking up on ya gonna get ya! Whoops, that wind genny almost got through, glad we headed it off at the pass!

Another fallacy is who owns these systems, you'll find most owners are fairly conservative gun owning folks, everyone I know personally who has some form of alternatives is, and that's around the country. This "left and right" thing is so totally overblown and ridiculous. Only "conservativews" support this or that, and only "liberals" support this or that. It's totally stoopid. I own some solar panels and associated gear, that makes me automatically some enviro nazi liberal, right? Ridiculous. Stupid. I believe in having a credible 'backup system" in home and personal self defense. Ya, I got access to government "911", so I guess that 'enough", right? I mean, look at how 'cost effective" a simple phone call is compared to owning a firearm and learning how to use it. It's way cheaper to just use the phone for 'centralised security" delivery. Cheap gun 100$, phone call, less than a quarter. See/? "cost effective". No sense in me being "independent' on that, either. I mean, everything is just dollars and cents.

The market is growing, people who get systems like them, that's the bottom line. Most folks I have met who got any sort of system actually wish they had done it sooner. It's just neat. It's way cool to know you got something so useful and functional. And there's also this deal of comparing long tern renting of energy with actual purchase price. Like, here's an open offer to anyone. The bashers, the 'botom line" folks. Here's the dare if you really want to compare costs strictcly from a federal reserve note angle. First, you'll have to show me where any local utility company anyplace in the US will give you a bottom line firm fixed purchase price in dollars on juice for the next twenty years, where they will give me or anyone else as joe homeowner a price guarantee and warranty and let you pay it off up front. Now I want in addition to that the added in real numbers on what comes out of your income tax with holding to 'support" this monopoly juice from wherever it starts from all the way to the socket in your wall, the complete vertical and horizontal journey, that's part of the "dollar numbers' as well. Say you buy a new home, homes definetly need the juice, where can anyone get that 'electric" part of that home ownership tied in with the mortgage for the same amount of years. Where is it, what does it cost, actual company name, actual website, actual dollars and cents and watts numbers. Twenty years, same as the panels I got.

Put it up, let's see it. Where is it, what are the numbers? Anyone, go for it, show it, details, not vague generalities. Then we can talk numbers.

It doesn't bother me one bit it's a small number now of system owners, even though it's approaching one million last I looked and saw. It used to be a small number owned "useless and impractical" home computers, too, because there wasn't much of anything "practical" you could do with a 4,000$ dollar electric typewriter back then. It wasn't "cost effective". Regular cheap typewriters and manual file cabinets and adding machines were more 'cost effective".

I'm so gald the luddites didn't win on that one, despite all the pompous bashing that went on.

I'm so glad most folks want to be tied 100% for their energy, food and water needs to big gov/corporate brother. I'm just so proud, true "real" conservatives are part of the herd, right? Just so gosh darn proud of them, being 100% dependent. That's really "cost effective" too in other ways, you don't even have to think anymore, big bro and big corporate can do your thinking for you, like why waste your time when they can decide what you want and what you think for you?.

have fun.

[reg45]

Bullseye!

[B. A. Conservative]

One of the beauties of the Internet, is that "we" won't have to vote and neither will our Congress. There are millions of bright minds out there that have had no practical way of communicating and sharing data and they have had very restricted access to the knowledge base. Technological breakthroughs are going to accelerate as we proceed into the future. We are living through and witnessing an unprecedented compression of time and are entering a phase of the exponential expansion of knowledge. Getting the truth out and the supporting evidence will be quicker and easier than ever before. Confirmations will follow at a similarly expedited pace. And new questions will more often be raised before the consequences of not asking the right questions even occurs. Get ready, the Twentieth Century is over. And the Twenty-first is promising to be truly awesome.

[boris]

"As usual, wrong on all counts. There is NO battery with the necessary amperage storage--which is why all the emphasis on fuel cells. It is theoretically possible to build electrolyzers which are MORE than 100% electrically efficient (i.e. high-temp. ones which are run capturing the waste heat from another power source). Which would you rather pay for---500 new nuclear power plants, or a third world war? I think the new energy infrastructure would be a LOT cheaper, personally."

Aside from your merry dispensation with the laws of thermodynamics, you are so dense that you (as usual) failed to grasp my point. Which is: as a simplifying assumption, assume perfect "batteries". To keep all of our rolling stock rolling, you cannot rely on bottoming. You would have to build 500 plants to supply the capacity. Since electrolyzers are less than 100% efficient, with fuel cells the situation would be worse than my best-case thought experiment.

Personally, I prefer WW III to adopting beliefs that violate well-known laws of physics.

But forget WW III. The U.S. has vast supplies of coal, shale oil, and other hydrocarbons which are currently too expensive to use--or prohibited by idiotic environmental regs. Not to mention the potential of methane clathrates (methane hydrates) which are known to contain more energy then all of the proven oil and gas reserves on the planet. All we need to do is figure out how to get at it...it sits on the sea bed, to depths of many meters.

--Boris

[boris]

" Transmission and storage will be as compressed gases, not liquid."

Disastrous, as my post 38 says. Compressed H2 is much less dense than the liquid, which itself is 11 times less dense than gas.

If you try to use compressed H2 for transportation, you get gigantic, enormously heavy tanks, and even more limited range.

Even worse, compressed gas tanks are more dangerous than liquid dewars because they can (and will) explode. Common metals cannot be used for compressed hydrogen because of a phenomenon called 'hydrogen embrittlement', which forces the tanks to become gigantic, heavy, and costly, which I guess is a home run for the environmentalists and luddites...such as you.

--Boris

[VOA]

bump

[PA Engineer]

I had the reverse effect when sailing. Maybe you were not fishing on those days. ;-)

[FirstFlaBn]

Let's see. Here's the standard you set for those who disagree with you:

Put it up, let's see it. Where is it, what are the numbers? Anyone, go for it, show it, details, not vague generalities.

But here's a sample of your statements:

I get a lot more solar power out of my system for the energy used to create it than all the tv sets ever built.

when the grid was down, which in some areas of the country happens quite a bit.

You can get a decent amount from not that many panels

you'll find most owners are fairly conservative gun owning folks,

everyone I know personally who has some form of alternatives is,

and that's around the country people who get systems like them

Just like the rest of the greenies, a lower standard for yourself (really no standard at all) - and also like the greenies - selfrighteous drivel in the exposition. Undocumented claims, unsupported accusations, and dishonest economic analysis. And, oh boy, the bolded passages above contain some really specific numbers. Typical.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

Got to find the article where Davis is dictating that 20 % of energy in California must come from renewable sources!

Calpowercrisis:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below:
	click here >>>	Calpowercrisis	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Look at what a Governor of California is trying to do!

California governor seeks to boost renewable energy

SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 (Reuters) - California Gov. Gray Davis on Monday backed legislation that would force the state's investor-owned utilities to almost double the amount of power they get from renewable energy sources.

The state Senate bill, if approved, would require California's three investor-owned utilities by 2010 to get around 20 percent of the electricity they supply to their customers from renewable sources such as the wind and sun.

Such renewable energy sources currently provide about 12 percent of the state's power.

Go here to read more about the happenings from the Western State of California.

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[Willie Green]

Related threads:

US takes role in Colombia to new level
BP Cuts 500 North Sea Oil Jobs

---

U.S. Petroleum & Crude Oil Overview
(thousand barrels per day)

	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
U.S. Crude Oil Production	7,035	7,804	9,637	8,375	8,597	8,971	7,355	6,560	5,834
U.S. Petroleum Imports	1,815	2,468	3,419	6,056	6,909	5,067	8,018	8,835	11,093
Total	8,850	10,272	13,056	14,431	15,506	14,038	15,373	15,395	16,927
Imports as % of Total	20.5	24.0	26.2	42.0	44.6	36.1	52.2	57.4	65.5

As North Sea oil production continues to decline, America's dependence on imported petroleum will shift even more towards OPEC. While drilling offshore and in ANWR may help, it would still be insufficient to dramaticly reduce our ever-increasing consumption.

The obvious solution to this dependency would be to begin construction of modern, efficient mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas. Electricly powered light rail, high-speed rail and maglev systems could be easily fueled by clean-coal and nuclear technology power plants.

Unfortunately, RINOs have been bought-out by Big Oil special interests. Alaskan representative Don Young, who chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, continues to sidetrack and delay implementation of energy efficient mass-transportation systems. A whole contingent of Nevada RINOs unite to obstruct our nation's efforts to utilize abundant nuclear power. And Dubya's own sibling, Jeb, brags about his obstruction on his re-election website:

Protecting Florida’s Coasts From Offshore Drilling – Thanks to Governor Bush’s hard work and leadership, Florida’s coastal and marine resources will continue to be free from the threat of offshore drilling. Protections secured by Governor Bush far exceed those agreed to by former President Clinton, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, and the late-Governor Lawton Chiles.

[zog]

Put it up mr internet energy forum expert. Take my dare and we'll discuss economics. So far all I keep seeing in the hundreds of articles and thousands of posts I have read on this subject, all I keep seeing is comparing a theoretical lease price with zero pricing guarantees with an actual ownership price for a consumer product, which isn't even close to being comparable. Show me ONE single public electric utility in the US that will give you a flat dollars amount for electric amount "service" contract that you can purchase and own that is 20 years. Show me a ten year one if twenty years is too long and you can't find one. Too much to ask? Why? It's a consumer product isn't it? Do you rent your furniture, or buy it? Would you rent a couch you wanted to have for years with NO prices quoted from a few years from now? How about your car, would you lease or rent a car for x-years without knowing what the lease payments would be some years down the road?

Compare apples to apples we can talk. Until then this is spinning wheels getting no where. Show me the contract, the name of the utility, their quotes, verifiable,then make an honest comparison, key word there is "honest"..

I'd be more than willing to change my tone on these energy threads if the lock stepping bashers would concede that single point-the comparisons are totally different, it's not even possible unless there's a comparable product you can purchase on the centralised delivery system market, for the individual homeowner. On home produced, with ANY method, you sure as heck can get a bottom line price, just waiting for the other side to step forward with their years long price. Not one year, a similar contract as your home where you use the juice. 10,15,20,or 30 years, same as a mortgage. I've asked this question for years to various people, and this is at least the third time I've asked it on freeps when the alternative energy threads show up so they can be bashed, and not one person yet has been able to find an example to support their claims. They always change the subject, so I'm changing it back DIRECTLY. Let's have a real economic comparison with actual PRICES. I didn't start the thread or write the article, but the article insists on comparing two different energy things as 'the same", then it goes off into economics. That don't compute on any other consumer article with economics, so it's just not gonna compute here. and I contend the entire basis of it is based on that most obvious lie. So take it from there. If you have an example that proves me wrong-just one, doesn't have to be dozens, I'll concede and tone it down, until then, nope, gonna keep calling the lies "lies" as I see them put up on this forum.

[snopercod]

The obvious solution to this dependency would be to begin construction of modern, efficient mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas.

Like the one in Los Angeles that cost ten times the original estimate and nobody ever uses?

[RadioAstronomer]

It will be interesting. :)