I have a good friend who believes that renewable energy sources, including solar and wind, should be powering America. Based the President's policies and actions, Barack Obama apparently feels the same way.
In a perfect world, the sun and wind would power our planet, but these views held by my friend and President Obama display a real naivete about how electricity is generated, the cost of the various energy sources and the limitations of storing energy.
Currently, coal, nuclear and natural gas are the principal sources that generate America's electricity. Fossil fuels and nuclear power produce 87% of our electricity, while renewables generate 13%. Within the renewable category, the majority -- 8% -- is generated by hydroelectric power, which means that solar and wind provide no more than 5% of America's electric generation mix.
So, let's say for the sake of argument that America shifts its electricity generation mix from fossil fuels to renewables, as President Obama seems to favor.
As enticing as this might sound, how would we store electricity when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing?
The fact is that there is no efficient way of storing electricity in large quantities, so either the electricity is used when it's generated, or it cannot be used. It simply doesn't stay in the wires until it's used. There are some promising technologies on the horizon, but they aren't economically feasible or proven just yet on a large scale. In reality, these technologies are probably decades away from being ready for the marketplace. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_challenge_for_green_energy_how_to_store_excess_electricity/2170/
Solar and wind power are not reliable forms of energy. Sure they're reliable when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, but the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day and the wind isn't always strong enough to turn a large turbine. Although solar panels can generate electricity on cloudy days, they cannot generate electricity when there is no sun -- when it's night. Wind power can pick up the slack at night, but only when the wind is sufficient to turn a turbine. Most wind generators produce power only between 40% and 60% of the time.
So, if electricity cannot be stored and solar and wind power can only be counted on to generate electricity about half of the time, what are our options?
Well, America could simply learn to do without electricity for hours on end when the renewable energy sources aren't available, but that's not realistic in a society driven by energy.
The only other option is to rely on fossil fuel and nuclear power plants when the renewables aren't able to generate electricity. In other words, if you want electricity you would have to pay for the renewable sources AND back up sources of electricity. With renewable energy sources already more expensive than coal and nuclear power plants, customers would have to pay at least three or four times what they are paying now to support the renewables AND back up sources of energy.
The cost to generate electricity using coal or nuclear power stations is about four cents per kilowatt-hour, while wind power costs eight cents and solar costs 22 cents per kilowatt hour. (Note: This is the cost to generate the electricity, not the cost actual charged to customers.)
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
My friend recently opined that "the Earth is worth the investment." Again, this is a very naive view of the world. If America were to move towards significantly more renewables to generate electricity (i.e., moving to renewables providing 50% of our electricity), then our electricity rates undoubtedly would be the highest in the world, which would impact our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
If you think America lost a lot of manufacturing jobs in the past few decades, double or triple our energy costs by switching to renewables and you'll see America lose what's left of its manufacturing. Energy just happens to be one of the principal costs of manufacturing and for that matter, most business and industry.
Does this mean that America shouldn't encourage renewable energy sources? Of course not. America has always been a land of innovation, and the government should support research into these areas.
But American cannot make renewable energy affordable by implementing stifling regulations on fossil fuels in order to bring the costs of fossil fuels and renewables closer together, and our government should not be picking energy winners and losers as a venture capitalist (i.e., Solyndra). The marketplace is the most efficient and effective way of selecting which energy sources should power our country. Just as the marketplace determined that the gasoline-powered automobile developed by Henry Ford would rule transportation and the iPod would dominate portable music, the marketplace should determine which energy sources are available to customers. The marketplace always has spurred innovation in America.
In the unrealistic Utopia where our President and my friend would like to live, energy is supplied by the sun and wind, and energy is cheap and prevalent. However, we all live in the real world and the decisions we make about our energy sources determine whether or not Americans can put food on the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment