The Voice of Reason: Comparing Renewable Energy to Santa Claus

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.


 

 

Voice of Reason: Top Five Reasons Why You Should Vote for Obama

With millions of Americans out of work or underemployed, record numbers of our fellow citizens on foodstamps and our country $5 trillion more in debt in just the past three and one-half years, it's difficult to find reasons why anyone would vote to reelect Barack Obama.

But for every coin, there are two sides, and I believe there are reasons why some voters would cast their ballot to keep President Obama in office.  Here are the top five reasons why I believe someone would vote to reelect Barack Obama:

He's a person of color. 
America prides itself as a country of equal opportunity and electing a person of color in 2008 signified an important shift in this country's racial history.  Notwithstanding that under his leadership the economy has gotten worse with millions more are out of work or underemployed, some voters will simply vote for him again because of his skin color.

You don't work, don't want to work and want the government to support you.
Under the President's leadership, the number of people on unemployment insurance, disability and food stamps has exploded.  Unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks, nearly two full years, and the government is now paying to broadcast ads encouraging thousands more to sign up for food stamps.  More people than ever before in our country's history are looking to our federal government for a check to support them and their families.
 
You work for a business that thrives during a terrible economy.
Some businesses thrive when the economy is terrible. With so many people unemployed and underemployed, businesses such as discount stores (people looking for bargains), rental property agencies (people losing their homes and having to rent), and grocery stores (people cooking at home and not eating at restaurants as much) are thriving.

You don't drive a car and don't use electricity.
Under President Obama's leadership, traditional, cheap and reliable sources of energy, including coal, will soon be phased out in favor of more expensive, less reliable energy sources such as solar and wind. President Obama has also discouraged drilling of our domestic oil resources and the completion of the Keystone Pipeline, which will result in fewer barrels of domestic oil and oil from our neighbor, Canada, being processed in our refineries.  Less supply means higher prices, but if you don't drive, you may not care.

You are an illegal immigrant, or the family member of an illegal immigrant. 
Last week the President essentially ordered immigration authorities to ignore laws on the books for many illegal immigrants between the ages of 16 and 30.  If you want to live in this country and are here illegally (yes, some of these illegal immigrants vote), this President is working hard to allow you to live here legally -- irregardless of the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by previous Presidents.  In addition, the Obama Administration has quit cooperating with the State of Arizona because that state is actually trying to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.



As you can see, there are people who would benefit from a second term of Barack Obama -- those who don't work and don't want to work, those whose job security is improved during a terrible economy, those who don't use electricity or drive, and those who are in this country illegally or have family members who are here illegally.  In addition, there will be voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama just because of his skin color.

But for the rest of us, those who vote for a President because of his record and policies instead of his skin color; those of us who work hard and want to continue working; those who work or own businesses that thrive only when the American economy is thriving; those of us who pay our hard-earned bucks for gasoline and use electricity in our homes; and for those us who want comprehensive immigration reform and not just an election year political ploy, the choice is very, very clear.

Anybody but Obama. . .Mitt Romney.





   






 

    

Obama's Energy Policy Displays His Naivete

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.