Emerging Propaganda Trends: Faux on Clean Energy

That's more like it. The off-shore wind looks very high. How about the solar concentration project in Mohave? Solar thermal looks high too.

 

Passive solar by definition does not produce electricity.

 

Here. Is the point however. I have been railing for years that if we actually paid the real costs of our energy choices solar would be competitive today! PV solar at $.20 kwh is"expensive", it's cost re "all in" so to speak.

When you actually consider the amount of work you can do efficiently with 1 kwh of electricity, it is a bargain. The problem has been that it is so cheap, we use it very wastefully. To cite one simple example, my bother inlaw lives in AZ. He runs his conventional A\C 24/7 on cheap electricity, while at the same time using cheap electricity to heat hot water. A comparatively inexpensive hot water capture heat pump (a/c.) system simultaneously reduce his a/c cost and his hot water cost, while saving considerable energy. The net effect of which would be the pain of $.20 kwh PV power would be slight.

To some great extent, North Americans waste as much energy a they effectively use,, largely because it is so cheap. As I have said, moving toward a less carbon, more efficient future does not mean we have to go back to the stone age, or go broke trying, we just need to be smarter.

Icarus

 

Well, no. But, it's a good source of heat.

It would be a very different world, alright. But just think of all the money the petrochemical industry wouldn't have made.

Seriously, our definition of 'profit' is fundamentally flawed.

 

Charts showing one form of energy often reflect the beliefs of their creator(s) and so you often have to look who's putting it together. For example, in the graph below, solar looks like a looser compared to nukes. Catastrophic events never seem to play into the R.O.I. factor. Our gasoline is cheep, but we maintain trillion dollar armies to secure it - than pass that cost as 'freedom'. Nukes melt down, destroy a country ... coal mines cave in - catch fire. Natural Gas fracking wipes out ground water, etc. Solar PV has issues to. Even so, some studies now indicate that PV is LESS expensive than Nukes. Much turns on the hidden costs NOT factored into the bar charts:

EV WORLD CURRENTS: New Nuclear Costs As Much As Solar PV Today

 

Exactly. The only valid comparison between forms of energy is to consider ALL the costs. That's what I mean when I say our definition of profit is fundamentally flawed. It purposely excludes some very real costs and skews our perceptions. Petroleum only looks cheap because it's heavily subsidised, both directly and indirectly. Yet in the long run, all costs considered, it's probably the most expensive.

 

I'm not sure how we get there. For all intents, using any commonly accepted model wind and gas are subsidized less than solar. Solar is competitive on price for remote locations and on individual homes and buildings not at the utility level. Most of this is because of subsidies, but who really cares at this point. Without subsidies depending on your model you might find solar cheaper than coal, nuclear, hydro-electric, and geo-thermal.

efficiency is often the least expensive method in both environmental and dollar terms. Household PV makes a great deal of sense in AZ, NM, and California. It doesn't make as much sense in some other places.

I think you are falling into a Carter trap here. Let's not worry about waste as much as utility and environmental and economic cost. Let's not make it more expensive if it is needless, or criticize those that use reasonable amounts of energy. Then again we should not be afraid to add environmental costs to our sources of electricity. No one needs a 10,000 sq ft mansion with poor insulation. But those of us living in hot places ought to be able to suck a lot of wind, geothermal, and solar to be cool and comfortable in our non mc mansions.

 

First, PV solar is very effective on an annal basis in much of the country. Do s PVwatts search for a number of random locations around n. america and you will soon see that in more places than not it is viable. PVWATTS v. 1

Second, I m not arguing that we should make energy " unduly" expensive. I am merely saying that we really need to begin to pay thetotqlt costs of our energy uses.


Third, efficiency is newly always the cheapest energy source out there. Consider the Prius. 50+ mpg compared to 25 for a Corrola. It doesn't come at twice the cost! Changing out inefficient HVAC systems is much cheaper than paying for the power. Adding insulation is much cheaper than paying to heat or cool spaces. (public transport is orders of magnitude cheaper net/net than SoV.

PV and wind might not comver the base load in the near future, but certainly when coupled with efficiency, hydro, and some nat gas we can reduce the total environmental cost of our energy choices.

Finally, add in the additional costs of our energy choices, and solar nd wind becom more cost effective right out of the box. If you step rate metering, such that you pay a penalty for excess use, people might begin to change the way they use energy.

We use ~ 5-8 kwh/day, 200 gallons of propane per year, and we live quite well. If someone (who I consulted with a bit ago,) uses 80+kwh/day needs to understand there there are cost behind their choices.

Icarus

 

I wasn't trying to imply it wasn't, but I was talking about cost versus alternatives. In those 3 states we have lower costs for solar, and in the case of California much higher prices for energy at the time solar produces. In many other places solar costs are higher, and alternatives lower.

Absolutely, I just think we should be honest about those costs. The chart given had much lower costs for coal and nuclear than we see for new construction, which is why I originally posted the wikipedia article.

We actually allow lower prices for businesses that use a great deal of power. We need an improved grid and metering to move people to the right time of use for renewables.

But we should not get mad at your brother in law if he has efficient AC because he lives in a hot place. If he has inefficient ac and can afford replacement that's different. Anyway where is your sister in all of this? If neighbors in similar climates have such varied usage then there is a problem. Japan is going casual, since with reduced energy usage right now ac is not set high enough to be comfortable in suits. I think that is a good move.

 

I don't want PV to cover base load. I want it to cover peak load. At that, it is already competitive.

 

Austin,

I should get mad at my brother in law, because he does have inefficient A/C and metaphorically others as well. In fact it isn't that we should get mad, but we should get people educated! Only when one begins to understand the ramifications of their choices do they begin to get it. I have always made the argument that conservation doesn't cost, it pays!

One big problem, as I see it, is that our energy costs are to cheap relative A; to their value, and B: to it's environmental cost. Marketers and corporations have sold people a bill of goods about climate change and energy in general, encouraging people to use more. Remember the ad for gasoline, where they were giving away steak knifes with a 10 gallon fillup? The guy could only get 5 gallons in the car, and he asked the attendant to dump the rest in the back seat as the steak was on the grill! It is this kind of attitude that still pervades too much of society, precisely because people don't see the real costs.

Education is part of it, but so is trying to understand how the consumer has been hoodwinked.

Icarus

 

Donno. perhaps the chart was made after Katrina? the article is dated 04/10, can't tell how accurate it is.

 

Remember what happened to Clinton proposed BTU tax?

 

I confess, I don't really remember Carter's btu tax even though I was around. I do contend however, that if we had had the equivalent of ~$1/gallon gas tax back then, we would have cheap energy net/net now, and we would be using less of it, plus we would be mu ch further down the road with alternatives.

The only usefulness in looking backwards is to try to learn from the mistakes, since we can't have a "do over".

Icarus

 

here is a couple quotes:
Case Study
Clinton Retreats on Energy Tax in Fight Over Budget - NYTimes.com

It took of the ground like led zeppelin.