I was in the lockerroom of my local gym this week when I heard two men talking about how America will be moving in the next few years from a country relying on energy from fossil fuels to relying on renewable energy sources.
After chuckling to myself, I nearly walked over and slapped those fools.
Those who believe that renewable energy sources will power America might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. At this point in the development of these energy sources and the technologies that support them, their widespread use is nothing more than fantasy, just like those fictional characters loved by so many children.
Let's say that America decided that that it wanted to rid itself of all fossil fuels, relying instead on solar and wind to power our country. There are a number of reasons why this will not happen in my lifetime and perhaps even during my children's lifetimes.
First of all, the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and battery technology doesn't exist to store the amount of electricity needed to power a small city, let alone a metropolis. As a result, one could possibly power a city using solar energy during the day, but at night that city would be in the dark. The renewable energy advocates would counter by saying that they would simply build enough wind turbines to power the country at night when the solar panels aren't able to generate electricity.
There's are a number of problems with that solution, including the fact that wind turbines on average are able to produce electricity only about 40 percent of the time. The rest of the time, though, wind isn't sufficient to generate electricity.
The same renewable energy advocates would counter by saying that surely a mix of solar panels and wind turbines spread across the country could power this great land. Once again, logic prevails.
In order to achieve this, America would need to build six or seven times its needed generating capacity in order to provide a somewhat reliable source of electricity. With renewable sources already costing two, three or more times the current cost of electricity generated predominantly by fossil fuels, one would see his or electricity bill increase from $100 per month to $1,000, $1,500 or even more per month, just to pay for redundancies to offset the loss of solar power at night, or the loss of wind generation when the wind isn't blowing sufficiently to turn a large number of the wind turbines.
Those same renewable energy advocates might then say that America should simply turn to wind and solar to power maybe 20% or 25% of the country's energy needs. Once again, America would have to build sufficient redundancies in coal, nuclear and natural gas generation to power the country when these renewables aren't available. And once again, the cost of electricity would skyrocket because of having to pay twice for the same generation.
Those same renewable energy advocates don't even consider the consequences of an America with electricity costs that increase two, three, four times or even more. The result would be that American families would be even harder pressed to make ends meet, and significantly more manufacturing jobs would be driven overseas to countries relying on cheap, reliable sources such as coal to generate their electricity. In other words, Americans wouldn't be able to pay their electricity bills because of the rapidly rising rates and the fact that millions more would be out of work.
To prove my point even further, consider a community that needs 1,000 megawatts of electricity to meet the energy demands of its residents. The community builds 1,000 megawatts of solar capacity, but then has to build another 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity in order to rely on those renewables. But to ensure that there will be sufficient energy when needed, the community will also need to build 1,000 megawatts of capacity powered through traditinal fossil fuels, so that energy is available at night and when the wind isn't blowing hard enough to turn the turbines. In short, in order to ensure a reliable supply of 1,000 megawatts of electricity, this community would have to build three times that capacity, which would cause electric rates to increase significantly for residents and result in the loss of jobs to communities with much lower electric rates.
The fact is that every energy source has its positives and negatives, and America should develop an "all of the above" strategy to meet its energy needs. But the marketplace, not the government, should determine which energy sources power our country so that America can remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Just as the use of coal results in air pollution, even with the most sophisticated pollution-control equipment installed on power stations, natural gas also has its downside. Prices of natural gas have fluctuated wildly in the past, and the pipeline explosion this past week in West Virginia reminded us of another downside -- natural gas can explode. Everyone knows about the dangers of nuclear power, thanks to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the failure in Japan.
Even the renewables have downsides. Solar panels are manufactured using extremely toxic chemicals, and once installed they disturb thousands of acres of land and result in the loss of habitat for animals. As for wind turbines, hundreds of thousands of migratory birds are already killed each year by the relatively small number of wind turbines in use across America now, and noise disturbs people living within a couple of miles of these large structures. People also complain about these large structures ruining the view in their picturesque communities.
Maybe one day renewables will power this country. But for now, believing that they will power America is much like believing in Santa Claus. It may be nice to believe for children, but reality takes over for the adults once the bills come due.
No comments:
Post a Comment