Our Wrong-Headed Approach to Utilizing Alternative Energy Sources
I just had an interesting correspondence with the editor of an energy publication. Here’s a story that should put it into perspective. Tell me if I’m crazy.
Let’s say some investors and developers step forward with a reportedly new type of commercial grade electrical power. They named it “Zephyr Integrated Power” (ZIP). Since these people are clever types, they spent a lot of time and money on the marketing aspect of ZIP. (They knew that this was necessary to be able to break into the system — and they want on the grid in a big way.)
So they tell us that ZIP is “free, clean, and green.” Sounds good!
Oh yes, for good measure they also add that implementing ZIP will create oodles of jobs.
So the basic question is this: exactly what do we do before we allow these people and their new product on the electric grid?
We wouldn’t be so gullible to just take their word for ZIP’s purported benefits, would we?
At the current time, the disturbing answer is yes, that is exactly what we do!
And there is more: our politicians are so enamored with ZIP that they tell these promoters that we will not only allow them on the grid, they will force utilities to use ZIP. (Hmmm. Wouldn’t utilities want to use ZIP if it was so great?)
How are utilities going to be forced to use ZIP? Lobbyists have sold our politicians a clever tool called RPS to do just that.
Despite the supposed benefits (which a free market would obviously jump on) they offer the ZIP people the promise that something like a trillion dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer money will be spent to support their product!
Even the ZIP lobbyists have a hard time believing how easy this has become. The incentives offered amount to ZIP investors earning an annual 25%, government guaranteed.
Remember, all this is without independent proof that ZIP has any real benefits.
This astounding state of affairs is how our current lobbyist driven system operates.
My Pollyanna vision is that such complex technical matters should instead be solved by science. It would go something like this:
I’m told that wind turbines kill thousands of birds per year.
Birds poop on my car.
So there’s ONE benefit.
Most of the green energy movement relies on the gullibility of the general public. Although wind and solar have very limited uses, they are touted as the way of the future by the eco-guardians of the planet. The downsides of these methods (like cost, maintenence, need for back up power, etc.)are supressed. If these methods were so great, the free market would be milking a very big cash cow. The eco-gods have figured out that most people don’t want radically more expensive and unreliable energy sources, so they have reached for a different lucrative route: government subsidies. And the dirty truth is that all of these grand schemes would die on the vine, without massive influxes of tax money. One glaring example is hydrogen power. It’s clean, it’s green, it’s the fuel of the future! But the sidestepped question is: where do we get all this hydrogen from? With the possible exception of distillation from natural gas (an eco-no-no), there is no method of producing hydrogen that consumes less energy than the hydrogen can produce itself (much the same lesson people should have learned from the folly of corn based ethanol as fuel). But the eco-profiteers push ahead with this nonsense anyway. Cost-benefit analysis? Fugettaboutit!
Why don’t we go with a proven non-CO2 energy source that has a long history of providing around the clock energy and actually provides high paying jobs. Yes, I am talking nuclear power and it is truly the best green energy out there and it would employ thousands in really good paying jobs. It would be available 24/7 and could be used in the off hours to crack H2O to make H2 or used to charge all those electric cars. If we had been smart we would already be oil independent because like France we could be supplying 80% of our energy needs via nuclear. We stand ready to realize this and we need to have the stomach to do the right thing. Sure you can argue about the waste, but in reality it is very small and quite manageable. The plants of today will last for 50 years or more and are extremely safe, they also burn less fuel and consume it more completely. You want a green energy source then look to a proven source. Also if you want to make it renewable then we can talk breeder reactors the create more fuel as they operate.
I can’t stand it when someone talks common sense about Wind/Solar power.
I lived for three decades on wind and solar and rainwater catchments.
But what do I know?
I know that Wind and Solar power are the most egregiously erroneous pseudo technologies the Bolsheviks have come up with to whip around the idiot American public. They’re great, if you have: No. Other. Choice!
Drill everywhere in creation. Stop burning our food supply for fuel.
And permit Japanese mini-nukes immediately (since the Gore-perations like GE don’t know how to make the big ones work reliably and safely).
No No No !
Replacing petroleum energy with WIND energy is a GOOD thing. Reduced imports, reduced funding to terrorist supporting regimes, elimination of footprints all over.
Therefore, we should immediately convert vehicles to be powered by SAILS. This will substitute WIND power for present OIL.
I am sure you will agree the above recommendation is as credible as most of the Green programs presently funded by our altruistic government.
Kermit the Frog
Green Power Advocate
There are two basic problems with your approach. You propose to have government intervene and make the decision and ignore the economic justification. This is a mistake. The decision should be based on economic considerations. At no time should taxpayer money be the source of the economic viability of a project. Taxpayer money could be utilized for research but not to subsidize the product to make it profitable.
The idea of another government agency that would approve or sanction the non-economic production of energy is ludicrous. Unfortunately, the scientific method has taken a serious black eye from the Global Warming debacle. Graft, corruption, and cronyism are not limited to the government. The scientific community is infected too; witness the global warming saga playing out now. Politics and science make poor bedfellows. One befouls the other.
If we base the decision on capitalistic economic principles all bases are covered. Some may clamor the environment is not. I beg to differ. Under our system of economic capitalism we have the legal system to ensure that the environment is protected under the existing and evolving environmental regulations.
Another, Nanny State agency would ensure exactly what you hope to avoid. In a perfect world your suggestion makes sense but our world is not perfect. Social and economic pressures trump all others. Therefore, graft and corruption will seep into the process. If free enterprise utilizing basic economic principles are the driving force behind the decision graft and corruption are minimized because graft and corruption decrease the economic benefit. If rather a government agency is the ultimate decider then graft and corruption are encouraged because economic benefit is maximized by utilizing graft and corruption. A bribe will not bend the laws of physics but it will bend the law of man.
One caveat: if the government-funded organization makes these “scientific decisions” then the process is corrupted politically. That is the nature of man, especially when they are gathered together as “government.”
I oppose your notion for this reason, just as I (as a practicing physician) oppose the government panel to decide what treatments can be offered.
Scientists and physicians make mistakes, just as engineers do. We have seen recently the corruption of “science” with the global warming idea. I am old-fashioned though and I believe science was not corrupt, but scientists were corrupt.
Your concerns have a certain important factor of having alternate energy be economically feasible. So the process that makes this “right” is the marketplace. That can be moderated some by tax policies “encouraging” the use of certain alternate energy methods.
Having spoken with senior people at AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) I’ve come to realize that the only large quantities of power being generated by them is in the form of methane. Billions of dollars in studies (that reproduce greater needs for studies) seems to be the only activity of the association and it’s membership.
Why would you not take a purely economic approach (please note, I am a mechanical engineer, not an economist) and let it sink or swim with NO public funds?
Right now, my electric bill not only includes the costs plus profit for the utility but a significant tax paid to the government as well. And that does not include the taxes paid by the utility’s investors on their capital gains and dividends.
If it is so great, then utilities will jump at the change to use it. If it in fact produces electric power at a cost well over 10 times that of other sources (which is what I understand), well, it won’t do so well, – except in places where it is the only alternative, like on Gilligan’s Island.
#1 jvon: Here is more information on bird kills: Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (National Academies Press, 2007)
Having said the above, we provide here estimates summarized by Erickson et al. (2005) and estimates reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2002a). Those sources emphasize the uncertainty in the estimates, but the numbers are so large that they are not obscured even by the uncertainty. Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than 1 billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”
Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths—less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005). However, the committee re-emphasizes the importance of local and temporal factors in evaluating the effects of wind turbines on bird populations, including a consideration of local geography, seasonal bird abundances, and the species at risk. In addition, it is necessary to consider the possible cumulative bird deaths that can be expected if the use of wind energy increases according to recent projections
jvon,
“I’m told that wind turbines kill thousands of birds per year.
Birds poop on my car.
So there’s ONE benefit.”
Ha, so true! We ought to install a line of them across the border between the US and Canada, hopefully they’ll take out most of the Canada Geese before they migrate back and poop everywhere.
Here’s the latest promotional wind from the official UK Government site at http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
They have a climate change guide called “Selling the Sizzle”
Amongst other things (download it to read and laugh/cry) they say – and I quote:
“In this guide we argue that climate change is no longer a scientist’s problem, it’s now a salesman’s problem. We call upon government spokespeople, climate campaigners and business advertisers to stop selling visions of hell. Instead we must all create and sell a new vision of a’ low carbon heaven’.”
The guide itsel says:
“We need to build a new picture in people’s heads:
a self-fulfilling, low carbon prophesy. If we get our act
together, we can transform energy supplies, replacing
the old and dirty with the new and green. We can
switch high consumption, high stress, and high heart
disease lifestyles for something more desirable.”
“In this guide we argue that climate change is no longer a scientist’s problem, it’s now a salesman’s problem. We call upon government spokespeople, climate campaigners and business advertisers to stop selling visions of hell. Instead we must all create and sell a new vision of a’ low carbon heaven’.”
Mr Droz, the ZIPPY evaluation that you describe and the born-again AGW believers are in alternative universes.
Here’s a radical alternative idea: how about we keep the government completely out of the whole process? Let ZIP (or whatever new energy technology) live or die on its own merits with no public funding whatsoever. Let the markets decide.
Your answer is government???
Your answer is government “science”? That’s an oxymoron.
How about, if the alternative source has any merit to it or not, then the private free market will determine it. Any time you bring government into the process, you corrupt that process, multiple the costs, and end up with a piece of crap that no one wants but is forced to use.
Remember back in the 90s when people (Dems) were insisting that we had to have government-funding of the development of high-definition television or else we would have an HDTV-gap with the Japanese? Well, that government takeover didn’t happen then, and HDTV and flat-screen TVs and the rest of the digital revolution happened quite nicely, all without the corruption of government.
Meanwhile, when you get government involved, you get billions of dollars to combat global warming while D.C. is buried under two-feet of snow.
The trouble with current renewable energy sources are two-fold – the wind don’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. I’ve actually had libs suggest we use storage batteries to capture the energy for times when…well you get the drift on that. The other problem with these renewable energy sources are the libs/greenies themselves. If we are suckers enough to buy into their ‘system’ there is no guarantee they won’t try to condemn the very energy sources they’ve advocated in the first place.
In other words – they have a larger agenda.
You get Sarah Palin interested in ZIP, she can promote that as part of the ‘all of the above’ strategy for energy policy. And BLAMMO!!! (sorry, to steal some old Batman phrase) you got yourself some attention from the ‘evil oil company’ types.
Wind and solar are NOT ready for primetime yet. They still suck HARD. And geothermal is just dumb at this point (letting extremely hot air out of the earths mantle to ‘cool the planet’???) How about just better dams???
As a staunch conservative, I want the BEST energy option. I want the cheapest, most effecient and least negative externalities (for non-econ folks, that means side effects). I want ACTUAL progress instead of a government dictate solution which causes more problems that it cures.
Why it is when I google this company name I can’t find anything about what is actually IS? What is it actually DOING? This article doesn’t really address the technology or even the approach other than the political/governmental approach to getting itself integrated/ingratiated into the system.
What the F is this ZIP thing? Why is it better, safer and cheaper than existing ‘alternatives’? Is this vaporware? How about an article which actually details WHY we want this and how we benefit. And why wouldn’t huge electricity consumers (like industrial plants or casinos) want to use this to take themselves OFF the grid?
pelaut, would those Japanese companies be GE-Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse, by any chance? Because those aren’t mini-nukes and they are half-American.
Friends:
Thank you for several very thoughtful, constructive comments.
Let me agree with several people, in that I am NOT in favor of more government. I proposed EAA as: 1) Energy solutions are a federal matter, 2) the OTC [a federal technology agency] actually DID work very well, 3) the FDA by-and-large does accomplish its main objective [we are certainly better off with it than without it], and 4) I couldn’t think of any better way.
The idea that everything should live and die completely on its own, with no financial help, certainly has some merit. I guess I believe that an objective, intelligent government (oxymoron alert!) could do some good here by assisting in the development of needed solutions.
——-
As more than one commenter observed, nuclear energy indeed is a scientifically sound solution.
——
Regarding “Zephyr Integrated Power,” I was trying to avoid attacking a specific company, so made one up.
I like the word “Zephyr”, due to its play on wind energy: “The west wind. A gentle breeze. Something that is airy, insubstantial, or passing.”
In addition I liked the acronym. What better way to describe many current solutions, as providing us ZIP?
——
Keep up the good critical thinking. Then look at my energy presentation “EnergyPresentation.Info”.
regards,
john droz, jr.
If you should by some chance force the wind farms in the Dakota’s off the main grid, could you arrange to let some the then unused power come my way? I don’t need all of the 2.4MW one of those things puts out on a breezy day, but it’ll certainly offset my bill from my not so local power co.
So the solution is yet another government agency that will cost us money and tell us what to do? And is staffed by the same people that run the post office?
There is another mechanism that is free to the taxpayer and performs all the functions you outlined much more efficiently than another new government entity.
It’s called the free market.
Mini Nuclear Power Plants: These are in production now. I have never heard a thing about these in the MSM.
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
A great clean burning fuel is LPG, trucks were using it 40 years ago. It could be used now in cars and trucks. Electric cars are not feasible yet, until we can find a better way to store or generate energy. The ones we have today are to expensive and battery disposal is going to be a problem. The environmentalists say no to everything, kills birds, visual pollution, to dangerous, etc. As for green jobs, I was watching an interview last week with the owner of the largest solar panel plant in the country. He is moving it to China, the wind turbines are made in China. You are correct of course, if there were a better mouse trap out there the public sector would be all over it.
Two thoughts – 1) As someone on PJM has correctly pointed out to me, most of the greenies are watermelons.
2) When someone tells you that the technology will “create” oodles of jobs, and they tell the technology is cheap, you know they’re lying. Jobs cost money (you have to pay the employees) and in that case the technology can’t be cheap.
#10 Gringo;
That extract from the Fish & Wildlife estimates is very interesting. It seems to be trying to downplay the number of bird kills by wind turbines, by saying that other types of technology kill more. I just see a couple of flaws in their “argument”;
1. The estimate on high-tension lines goes from “130 million” to “perhaps more than 1 billion”. That’s an extremely large “perhaps”; if their data is so sparse, or so badly collated or analyzed, that they consider an uncertainty gap of plus or minus point eight seven billion as acceptable, I have to question the validity of their sampling methods and processing procedures. Which leads me to question their other “casualty estimates” as well.
2. Stating that wind turbines “generated” less than .0003% of “anthropogenic bird deaths” in 2003, with only 20,000-37,000 overall, and all but 9,200 of those in California, does not justify stating that wind turbines have a “lower impact” than other “anthropogenic” causes. It tells me that since there are far fewer wind turbines in the U.S. than there are cars, high-tension lines, etc., I would expect a lower “conflict rate”, just because there are fewer things in the “wind turbine” category for birds to run into. A better check would be to compare apples to apples, i.e. “If you have ten cars, ten power-lines, and ten wind-turbines in the same geographic area, which one kills the most birds in a given year of normal use?”
My money would be on the wind turbines on purely technical grounds (i.e., big, tall, sticks up in the air, has large blades that are in motion when the wind blows, etc.).
“Studies” like this are favorite ploys used by the “greens” to “prove” the moral superiority of their obsessions. What they mainly prove is that “greens”, as a rule, cannot handle even basic math.
clear ether
eon
gringo – it sounds like we could see a “hockey stick” in ABD (anthropogenic bird deaths) if we build more wind turbines.
Can you say, “biofuel”?
“I can’t stand it when someone talks common sense about Wind/Solar power.
I lived for three decades on wind and solar and rainwater catchments.
But what do I know?”
My question exactly. What you don’t know is the difference between living and surviving. Living is 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, wall to wall, central heating and air. Plumbing, 42″ LCD’s and a home net. Having a garage to keep the birds from crapping on your motorcycle is good.
Surviving is a cave.
The simple fact is that Hydrocarbons are the most efficient form of energy. Both from a cost and energy POV. You can spend a fortune on turbines. They you sit around with you fingers crossed, hoping the wind blows. Try and run a business like that. Same for Solar. It’s great when the sun shines. Not so great when it doesn’t.
Until the fussion reactor is perfected, we are stuck with a combination of Hydrocarbons and nuclear.
Most energy usage is in transportation. Transportation is the foundation of commerce. The most efficient forms of transportation are powered by Hydrocarbons in one way or another.
SDB did a most excelent articls on this years ago. Here is a URL to his main points;
http://chizumatic.mee.nu/ghosts_of_my_past
Read it and weep alt energy fanatics.
The Math doesn’t work.
For example, lets take LGN automobiles. In order to keep them from exploding during a minor accident, the fuel tank needs to be very strong. That means very heavy, like 1/4 the weight of the car they are in. LGN is very efficient on a calory per gram basis.
However it doesn’t have anywhere the energy by volume. IIRC, the factor is 3. So you would need 3 times the volume to get the same affect as gasoline. Here is an onlime lesson that has all the facts (basic physics);
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP_textbook/PffP-01-energy-2008.htm
Right now, gasoline is king because no other fuel can match it for power, storage, and supply.
So unless the Democrats repeal the laws of Physics, we are stuck with the ICE. Somebody needs to tell Obama that if congress reduces the power of gravity by 1/3, we will get 3 times the gas mileage.
Try that and see how it works out. ;-}
There’s an ongoing fight between two groups of greens in California. One group is all for wind energy and the other group is complaining that their favorite birds are getting killed by the windmills. You can’t make up stuff this good.
Green activists can put their solar power plants where the sun doesn’t shine.
LPG is a CRYOGENIC fuel, like we use at the Cape in rockets. It requires an insulated tank and even then boils off whether it is used or not. It requires a special production and fueling facility. Large LPG tankers run their engines off the fuel that is constantly boiling off.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a far more usable fuel for automobiles but has its problems. I recently did a study for NASA and with the best available technology a CNG tank for auto use, for example, a 10 gallon gasoline equivalent, is 4 ft long, 16 in in diameter and weighs 100 pounds empty, 150 pounds full, or about 90 pounds more than a comparable amount of gasoline. While they are quite safe in crashes such tanks are intolerant of misuse and have limited lifetimes. They will work well for big trucks and busses that have defined routes and while they require more care in operation are already very cost competitive with gasoline. But running even a very high mileage plug-in hybrid on CNG is going to produce some challenges. The combined weight of the batteries and CNG tank will decrease vehicle performance substantially; such a vehicle really needs light weight. There is a reason you hear T. Boone Pickens promoting truck use of CNG and not cars.
23. Depends on the scale. Nuclear power can produce tens of thousands of jobs while producing electricity cheaper than current generating systems because the fuel is cheap and the output is large.
I’ve been saying for DECADES that wind and solar were hooey for electrical generation. (Solar hot water works OK someplaces.)
The key scientific/engineering parameter is energy density. Higher density means cheaper, stronger, faster – BETTER.
That points to nuclear.
Let the market decide is a great idea but the electrical grids are still natural monopolies in spite of efforts to “deregulate” the grid.
Small nukes? Maybe but there are big-time economies of scale, especially with our current regulatory system.
From some of the above comments I can only ask what ever happened to critical thinking?
This article is pointing out what free markets have always shown, wind power is best left for sail boats, not generating electricity.
But look a the brite side, lots of Chinese are being kept employed building “home wind turbines” being sold to Americans who want to feel good about saving the world.
Meanwhile don’t ya know the hucksters selling this snake oil are making profits off the backs of the tax payers who are not stupid enough to spend their own money on false promises, yet are being held up by their own government.
For every home wind mill there is a government rebate paid for with taxes I pay, and it pisses me off.
Joseph Somsel writes, “Small nukes? Maybe but there are big-time economies of scale, especially with our current regulatory system.”
Reform of that very regulatory system is long overdue (though I don’t expect it under the current administration). John Stossel has a good piece on Crony Capitalism (it’s on YouTube) showing, among other things, what nonsense regulations have done to the toy and clothing business, extending their impact even to garage sales and thrift stores.
In western Europe windmills produce on average 6 to 10 hours per day. In a very random fashion as the wind comes and goes as it likes.
So powerplants have to stand-bye spinning to maintain the powergrid. The constantly up- and down regulating of these powerplants consumes as much, probably more fuel than is saved by the windmills. It is only taxpayer money which keep these windmills alive, a lot of tax payer money.
Thank you leftish, greenish idiots.