hell, you can probably quote him on that in fifty, and the story will still be the same.... The "current trends" are easily attributable to government subsidies and little else.
Wind is profitable because they finally got it cheap enough to rival existing things, but you can't put enough wind turbines to fuel even a quarter of total US energy needs if you covered the country in them. Nor is it a giant cash cow. And you know who did that? Not some upstart lil green money taker, General Electric makes the turbines. The same one that makes them for nuclear power, and far more parts for coal burning plants. Oklahoma Gas & Electric uses them, but they are merely a supplement, and will always be nothing but that.
Solar is still expensive for mass power plants with paltry returns compared to coal, US companies have fallen apart vs Chinese undercutting in this area back by their government. And these are not industrial level panels, these are merely home ones that shave a little off the top, do not make the home self suffecient, and could never ever power an aluminum plant, military base, or even a big sky scraper. It's at best a tiny lil thing to make your power bill go down a tiny bit, but so can spray foaming your home which shows a better drop on average.
The disconnect on green profitability is that it has to be something you want to do. Save you money, or make you money. Rarely does green anything do either of those. It's more people 'hoping and dreaming' that it will magically do something in the same means that people will magically stop warring with each other. It's simple math when you take solar and wind power compared to the overall use of US power and it falls vastly short. Construction levels alone on those things wouldn't even do it in five years. It takes longer than that to make that to simply make the hardware, but it still doesn't generate enough even then. Not for the US, China, Canada, Japan, Korea, India, United Kingdom, Germany, or any country that considers itself an industrial producer.
Another big downside to solar/wind: what happens when it's dark and the winds are calm? You get no energy, that's what. So you need to give everything a battery capable of powering it for 12 hours or more. Highly toxic, environmentally nasty batteries, for absolutely everything. Not very green at all.
That *is* one reason to develop energy storage more than energy generation, though. A point lost on environmentalists.
Wind and solar both have potential as decent supplements, I think. But until there comes along a truly impressive energy storage technology, they'll never be more than that.
And the fact is, better energy generation tech is more likely to come along first.
The liberals should invent their miraculous new affordable energy-generation technique first, THEN we can all happily convert to it. They're acting like if they throw enough money at it, the technology will invent itself, and that's not the way science works.
The joke is though, that the newer batteries they need for those electric cars, buses and more, are quite toxic. So are quite a few of the energies, or they need loads of hard to get precious metals. So to get a lil more out of cars off a debatable gas they're willing to go to toxins and Chinese strip mines. China produces well over half of the metals needed for them since they have about zero environmental rules or oversight. While most of the American mines shut down since theirs was vastly cheaper. Now, they announced they will simply not export x amount to the US, S. Korea, Canada, Japan, and UK. Suddenly, the US is playing catchup on that one!
So, toxic batteries, check, strip mining, check, helping another ruthless regime for a precious commodity? Check! Environmentalism as its best while they give oil companies grief for supporting the Saudis. >D
Well, levy a 1000% tax on energy from fossil fuels and funnel all that into solar/wind subsidies, and maybe you'll be right. Then again, maybe we'll just fund a few hundred Solyndras and solar/wind still won't be able to compete.
Heh not very likely. Solar power fails as a primary power source by the numbers. And by that I mean the physics of it doesn't work. There is not enough sunlight in area that the panel covers to act as a primary source of power.
That said solar power is a fantastic boutique power solution for specific cases. Where you need power in a setting that is either very low voltage allowing the panel to provide both the power to run the device and the power to charge the battery needed for night operation. Things like signs, emergency road side phones, field pumps and other such specialized uses are perfect applications. Running your house ... not so much. Powering your city ... definitely not so much.
Keep in mind the reason people do use solar now is that it is so massively subsidized that you only pay a fraction of what it would cost without the subsidy. Unfortunately for them wind and solar are complete and utter failures as primary power generation sources and they will remain such no matter how much money is thrown at them. They just don't scale up to usable levels on the large scale.
yes, IF you ignore the necessity of continuous, STABLE power, storage of power, power for surges in demand, future growth.... and oh yes, the mining and manufacturing necessary to produce the 800 square km of solar cells in the first place--- and to eventually replace it. It currently costs more energy to make a solar cell than it produces in its functional lifetime, and produces more pollutants and WORSE KINDS of pollutants. The ecosystem can soak up carbon dioxide.... It's not so great at reabsorbing heavy metals and chemical toxins.
Solar is not a replacement for fossil fuels. Not even close.
rhjunior
Solar is still expensive for mass power plants with paltry returns compared to coal, US companies have fallen apart vs Chinese undercutting in this area back by their government. And these are not industrial level panels, these are merely home ones that shave a little off the top, do not make the home self suffecient, and could never ever power an aluminum plant, military base, or even a big sky scraper. It's at best a tiny lil thing to make your power bill go down a tiny bit, but so can spray foaming your home which shows a better drop on average.
The disconnect on green profitability is that it has to be something you want to do. Save you money, or make you money. Rarely does green anything do either of those. It's more people 'hoping and dreaming' that it will magically do something in the same means that people will magically stop warring with each other. It's simple math when you take solar and wind power compared to the overall use of US power and it falls vastly short. Construction levels alone on those things wouldn't even do it in five years. It takes longer than that to make that to simply make the hardware, but it still doesn't generate enough even then. Not for the US, China, Canada, Japan, Korea, India, United Kingdom, Germany, or any country that considers itself an industrial producer.
Wind and solar both have potential as decent supplements, I think. But until there comes along a truly impressive energy storage technology, they'll never be more than that.
And the fact is, better energy generation tech is more likely to come along first.
-Kire Du'Hai
So, toxic batteries, check, strip mining, check, helping another ruthless regime for a precious commodity? Check! Environmentalism as its best while they give oil companies grief for supporting the Saudis. >D
That said solar power is a fantastic boutique power solution for specific cases. Where you need power in a setting that is either very low voltage allowing the panel to provide both the power to run the device and the power to charge the battery needed for night operation. Things like signs, emergency road side phones, field pumps and other such specialized uses are perfect applications. Running your house ... not so much. Powering your city ... definitely not so much.
Keep in mind the reason people do use solar now is that it is so massively subsidized that you only pay a fraction of what it would cost without the subsidy. Unfortunately for them wind and solar are complete and utter failures as primary power generation sources and they will remain such no matter how much money is thrown at them. They just don't scale up to usable levels on the large scale.
you should be able to get an average power/m2 of 30W
(average solar irridance is 300w at 10% efficence)
means you need 600,000,000,000 m2
take their square root and you get 800km
1 square 800km on it's side is all the area you need.
Now compare that to a coal power station including the coal mine.
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?I
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?I
$4.4/watt for grid tie solar
5 hr*365 days = 1825 hours/year
10 years = 18,250 hours
1Kwh = 1000 hours = 18.25kwh
$4.4 / 18.25 = $0.24
http://www.originenergy.com.au/2087/Elec
$0.22759 cents.
Not that much difference on current prices.
and oh yes, the mining and manufacturing necessary to produce the 800 square km of solar cells in the first place--- and to eventually replace it. It currently costs more energy to make a solar cell than it produces in its functional lifetime, and produces more pollutants and WORSE KINDS of pollutants. The ecosystem can soak up carbon dioxide.... It's not so great at reabsorbing heavy metals and chemical toxins.
Solar is not a replacement for fossil fuels. Not even close.