Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Time to Step up the Comparisons: Solar and Wind vs. Coal and Oil

By Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
May 6, 2010   |   36 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

36 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 36
May 6, 2010
Russ, thanks for the comment. While I'm certainly pro RE, as noted at the end of the post, I don't expect us to be off of oil and coal tomorrow. That would be fanatical if I did. We need coal and oil right now, there's no doubt about it.

What I do hope is that more Americans are able to see these contrasts and will realize that we need to move faster into RE in order to decrease the effects of our carbon based energy needs.

If these are the thoughts of a fanatic, so be it, but I really believe I'm just summing up some important contrasts.
Comment
2 of 36
May 6, 2010
@russ - all I hear is 'blahblahblahblahadhominem'. If there are two sides, post the other. Baseless assertions and personal attacks do not an argument make.
Comment
3 of 36
May 6, 2010
Hi All:

What the _ell is comment #1???
There are two sides... well yea...here are two..
A gun is pointed at you.
Pull the trigger is one side.
Do not pull the trigger is the other.
Both sides are opposite with two very different results.
SO WHAT.!!!
Just because there are two sides it doesn't mean that there is no clear choice????
Most sane people would opt for NO PULL... How about you???
...and a true Green etc.. that really IS a complement... what could be a better thing, than to be respectful of the very planet that allows you to live in the first place...

.....Bill
Comment
4 of 36
May 6, 2010
Ummmm . . .

"Now, I can see the oil and gas lobby spinning the above to say that there isn't enough RE storage technology and that we need to upgrade our transmission infrastructure. RE also can't do it alone. All true."


Compressed Air Energy Storage? Perhaps it might be said to be more applicable to offshore wind energy, but storing energy produced over demand as compressed air in plastic bags on the lake bed/sea floor and then uncompressing that air to run turbines to provide energy can be done right now, today.

Solar plants might find flywheel energy storage to be of more interest. Again, flywheels are not new, so this approach is more one of increasing efficiency - which will happen as research dollars flow into university labs.
Comment
5 of 36
May 7, 2010
We have coal for sure, energy not pure,
Giving off pollutants and taking miners lives,
Atlantic oil leaks and coming oil peaks,
While renewable energy, knocks loudly at our door.
Comment
6 of 36
May 7, 2010
Article is nonsense. The oil and gas industry is the largest tax paying industry in the US. Wind and solar collapse without direct subsidy payments.
Comment
7 of 36
May 7, 2010
@rolf article is not nonsense the reason they pay so much in taxes is because they profit so much from us. If there was no profit there would be no taxes. Oil and gas are nonsense, it is a shame we need them right now. In the future we won't have any left so now is the time to make changes not when we are completely out. List me one point the author made that is not true ! 75 years from now solar and wind will be the largest tax paying industry in the US, because they will make the big profits as do coal, gas and oil now. Think into the future my friend. ! Peace,, Nice article SolarFred!!
Comment
8 of 36
May 7, 2010
" Article is nonsense. The oil and gas industry is the largest tax paying industry in the US. Wind and solar collapse without direct subsidy payments. "

rolf-westgard-67277 , thanks for showing us how stupid you are . . .

2009-2019 US Oil&Gas companies subsidy = $36.5 billion.
ExxonMobil 2009 NET profits = $45 Billion
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009
2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 650 000 millions
2000-2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 4 733 000 millions

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201
No image available
Comment
9 of 36
Anonymous
May 7, 2010
Coal and oil companies can read the writing on the wall and several have publiocally reminded us that as soon as there is an increasing price on Carbon then they can begin the transformation to a low carbon, renewable energy economy. Many of them already have investments in leading edge green technology and so are ready for a smooth move to green,
No image available
Comment
10 of 36
Anonymous
May 7, 2010
Why does this Newsletter and its article contributors consistently leave out mention of the most plentiful, most efficient, and most cost-effective renewable - hydropower? Let's also be honest, if we're going to compare energy alternatives, you must include take into account government subsidies and we know that coal and oil do get subsidies too, but hydropower subsidies are far below any of its competitors. We should also use net efficiency, not just the generating efficiency because the cost in terms of energy, especially for oil and gas, makes them far less efficient than their renewable competitors. In fact, why don't we end all subsidies, use net efficiency, and let's see who wins!
Comment
11 of 36
May 7, 2010
Tor,

Loved the post and think recent events will make the case even stronger.

One question I have regarding this comparison is, is it a problem that the use of solar and wind do not replace oil?

Chris
Comment
12 of 36
May 7, 2010
Chris, that's part of the conversation that I think needs to be brought up more and more realistically. It seems like every event we go to as journalists, we're hearing about how renewables move us away from oil. The problem of course is that most of them don't. High efficiency wood heating technologies here in the Northeast and biofuels are the only ones that do and they're not ready to make the same kind of impact that solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower can and are making to replace coal and and natural gas.
Comment
13 of 36
May 7, 2010
Excellent article. For sure renewables are the way forward. Global warming seems to politicize the article a bit. I actually try to leave global "warming" out of these kinds of conversations as the scientists are all jockeying and bickering and the "hypothesis" of man-made global warmiing is far from certain. Everyone can agree that fossil fuels are polluting and becoming more scarce (whatever their political beliefs).

Also, wind power as a 21 century technology. It seems to be one of the first energies to be harvested (sailboats) thousands of years ago.

Again, thanks for the fine matrix.

Randy
Comment
14 of 36
May 7, 2010
As to replacing oil with renewable: Oil is mainly used for surface transportation and while we can build electric vehicles, until our electric grid is converted to renewables we will largely be running them on coal at a poor total thermal efficiency. For the next 50-100 years oil will be replaced with biofuels. Many oil companies have invested in such renewables but watch for this catch. We can make synthetic bio-gasoline which is just as thermally inefficient as fossil gasoline with a high carbon molecule. Low carbon molecules like ethanol or DME are capable of the highest thermal efficiencies produced in IC engines. Converting to 'drop-in' renewable fuels that are high carbon molecules is not the answer. Remember this the next time you see something about algae. Many are looking to make 'bio-crude' from algae not a low carbon molecule.
Comment
15 of 36
May 7, 2010
Hydropower may be a significant renewable resource but if climate change does play out the way many models suggest, then decreased snowpack, hydro's "battery pack" will be seriously compromised and we'll need to replace with something. I'd suggest urban solar PV - acres and acres of large flat roofs, residential ones and parking lots first, as we figure out the most environmentally benign sites for utility-scale wind, solar, wave and other RE technologies.
Thanks for a great article and clear comparisons. The writing is on the wall.
Comment
16 of 36
May 7, 2010
While I agree with the general tone and tenor of the blog, I have a bone to pick about '19th century technology.' It may be the arrogance of our age, amply demonstrated in a number of areas, but solving our problems involves appropriate technology, not more arrogance. Daylighting and solar thermal are the non-cool technologies, but that doesn't diminish their objective value. The fact that they are already economic, and hence do not need heavy advertising, may account for the lack of 'cool' but is lack of advertising really the problem? Big Green won't serve any better than big oil.
Chrystaline gallium arsenide PV converts sunlight to electricity at 20% and is usually wired into flourescent light bulbs which convert it back at 15%, for total conversion efficiency of 03%. No wonder it has to be subsidized and advertised. Daylighting brings the light in at 70%. Cant' touch that!
Futura isn't the only company combining solar benefits to improve attractiveness. It is a trend.
Comment
17 of 36
May 7, 2010
Here's an example of someone making a real choice. This LA times reporter is using solar to power her home AND charge her electric vehicle. Annual fuel cost = $0. Trips to the gas station = 0. See the video at http://bit.ly/cm85lq

Compare to thousands in annual fuel costs for electricity and gasoline, weekly trips to the gas station, change oil every 3,000 miles, etc.
Comment
18 of 36
May 7, 2010
Hi All and Patrick:

You are so right about solar thermal and daylighting. ST displaces all forms of energy without discrimination. It targets the application (heat) and is capable of reducing any of the convnetionals that are used for such. Daylighting goes to electric lighting pretty much, but at extreme efficiency.
But as you point out so well, "$BIG$" anything is only after that which made them big, so only those solutions that line up with the primary goal get the exposure and pressure to move forward....

.....Bill
Comment
19 of 36
May 7, 2010
Patrick, I didn't meant to sound arrogant as much as passionate. It may be my feeling of RE always being arrogantly dismissed by oil and gas companies, and that was my little dig at the end.

Of course solar lighting is wonderful and Bill, I already mentioned ST as part of the mix. As for hydro, love it so long as it's done responsibly. As mentioned by Ray, there may be some serious problems with hydro if models keep up.

Chris, Graham, as long we have trees and grass and it's low carbon, I'm all for biomass. As for going 100%, Chris, I'm not an expert at predicting the energy future, but those who say they that are experts project we'll be anywhere from 25 to 50% RE by mid century. Would I love it to be more? Absolutely, and I hope those experts are off by 75% to 50% in RE's favor. Who knows what game changing technology takes off in he next few years?

Right now, all we can do is stand out and educate. Making comparisons like these are a great way to do that.

If you're wondering what I mean by stand out and educate, see my last post: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/04/the-sure-way-to-solar-marketing-failure-by-doing-nothing-you-become-nobody-

Thanks every one for contributing their thoughts!
Comment
20 of 36
May 7, 2010
The article favors wind and solar by failing to offer a helpful analytical comparison. First, costs are not compared quantitatively. Second, subsidies are not compared on a per energy basis (I am going to have to tell the author that oil, coal and gas are not nearly as heavily subsidized as solar and wind). Third, additional costs needed to make the renewables reliable are not considered.

But my biggest criticism is the article only offers 2 choices, either oil and coal or wind and solar. This is typical of today's poor US energy policy of Republican versus Democrat and will likely lead to an energy crisis, especially since both oppose development of the other. China and Europe support all energy choices.

I also have a problem with Graham Jesmer using wood and corn ethanol to suggest biomass is not ready to make the same kind of impact that solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower. Brazil is doing a much better conversion than the US using a cane sugar crop, which the US is blocking.
Comment
21 of 36
May 7, 2010
Mike Holly, thanks for commenting.

Regarding costs and subsides, I'll refer you to a-b-24958 comments above, as well as the link to an article that talks about a study that looks at oil and gas subsidies compared to solar from 2001-2008. Not the latest figures, but it just goes to show how have to catch up.

Second, this is a blog post to inspire others to compare, and we're not just comparing cost, though that is certainly a factor. What cost are those lives lost in Virgina and the Gulf. Honestly, that's what inspired this post to begin with. Compared to the risks of fossil fuels, RE can save lives and protect the environment.

I offered wind and solar because those are the two most prominent technologies that are clearly environmentally more attractive and less dangerous than the two recent tragedies. Certainly there are others, but my hope here is to shed light on the vast general differences between RE and the oil and gas status quo. It was not meant as a study or white paper, but a general blog post.

Thanks for your thoughts and participating in the discussion.
Comment
22 of 36
May 7, 2010
In 2009 The United States used 17 Million Barrels/day, produced 5.1 million barrels/day domestically, and imported 12.4 million barrels/day (over 60 percent), of which 6 Million Barrels/day come from the Middle East (OPEC). Our dependence on Oil is funding terrorist organizations and reliance on Coal is Poisoning our Communities and Water .

We currently use 25% of the world's Oil while we have only 3% of it. No amount of domestic drilling will adjust that number even a percentage point or have any effect on the price of Oil on world markets.

What will have the greatest effect is using a Lot Less of it and; Ending Wall Street Energy speculation; Improving Transportation Efficiency; Producing Domestic Biofuels; and Developing Freight Rail (such as along the East Coast I-81 corridor). These actions provide the greatest Bang-for-the-Buck and Job Creation without sacrificing other Multi-Billion dollar industries and White Sand beaches.

Remember when JOBS was our biggest issue? Well it still is for Millions of Americans.

We are all paying Hundreds of Billions Right Now for health and environmental damages caused by Oil, Coal and Livestock industries pollution. Make them pay their rightful share for the pollution they cause and we will all be employed and better off.
Comment
23 of 36
May 7, 2010
Hi Solar Fred.

Great article; you are the sunshine of our lives and I hope you will always be around.
Mike H.
No image available
Comment
24 of 36
Anonymous
May 7, 2010
Please watch the documentary "Gasland". It is about the fracturing of shale for 10 years in 34 states to get gas, and how water wells now have pentane, ethane, benzene, heavy metals etc and people are getting cancer, water burns, water well exploded...... It won Sundance award and was on the PBS tv show "NOW".

Gas should be put in the comparison.
Comment
25 of 36
May 7, 2010
a-b-24958 makes the same mistake as your link, comparing subsidies on a total dollar, instead of dollar per energy, basis.

I am glad to hear your reasons for offering wind and solar, but I am still bothered by others in the green movement who favor only wind and solar.
Comment
26 of 36
May 8, 2010
rolf westgard; comment 7--------" Article is nonsense. The oil and gas industry is the largest tax paying industry in the US. Wind and solar collapse without direct subsidy payments."----------

Maybe so, but they aren't paying them to the US. Bermuda, Cayman Islands and places where off shore banks are located perhaps, but not here. On profits of over $37 Billion last year, Exxon Mobil paid 0 taxes last year(to the US).

No. 2: ExxonMobil
Sales: $311 billion
Pretax income: $37.3 billion
Income taxes: $17.6 billion
Tax rate: 47%
None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid in the U.S. In 2008 the company's income tax bill was $36 billion.

Source, Forbes Magazine
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_slide_3.html

---------" Wind and solar collapse without direct subsidy payments"------

Allowing the exploitation of public lands at bargain basement prices(or in some cases free as happened during the last administration) is also a subsidy.
Oil and coal get so many subsidies no one is even able to come up with a comprehensive list. Almost the entire structure and budget of the EPA is due to the effects of oil and coal on people and the environment.
Comment
27 of 36
May 8, 2010
another considerable cost of coal, oil, and gas is regulation [or pretending to regulate]. i would love to see annual costs of all the federal and state bureaucracies established to supposedly protect worker safety and the environment. i can't imagine needing legions of inspectors to keep rogue wind turbines in check...
Comment
28 of 36
May 8, 2010
Wind on a farm that runs an animal-watering system does not require legions of inspectors, clerical workers, and lawyers.

Wind that goes into the grid does require these, and humans get killed in the construction and maintenance of large wind plants. Probably only a small fraction die compared to those killed in extraction industries, but it happens.

While the oceans are still ph-neutral enough, abalones are able to construct incredible structures at sea-water temperatures. Humans can learn to do this sort of thing, and some of us want to move in this direction.

Incrementally, we can move toward more resilient ways. I am frustrated with human structures that stand in the way of less heat/beat/treat/concrete

There is money to be made in change, nonetheless, so it will happen. Existing human power structures would like to orchestrate what happens next.

There is only so much control they can have, despite the enormous resources controlled by the revolving-door class.

Firings and whistle-blower-resignations characterize consolidations dictated by governments for their convenience in administrating and in hanging out with peers.

This process leaves opportunity for garage-and-basement teams, who always seem to come through for the U.S., after a lot of angst.

Frequently the under-grounders provide the next generation of door-swingers and campaign contributors.

While it seems the more it changes, the more it stays the same, I remember the 50's, the 60's, and the 70's. It's not the same. There are many ways to compare and contrast.

Few U.S. rivers catch on fire anymore, while the danger in the Gulf is still to be measured in its consequences.
Comment
29 of 36
May 8, 2010
Hi Mary S:

Ok, ever heard of time to target manipulation in ordinance? It is the ability to fire multiple small shells in sequence in such a way that they all arrive at the target at the same time, emulating a large shell of incredible force. It is made possible by precise munitions manufacturing and computer controlled firing and allot of math. Anyway, I feel like your post puts a whole lot of shells in the air, and as I was reading, I was getting ready for you to "paint the target", but then you stopped short. So where are all the shells going in conclusion???

.....Bill
Comment
30 of 36
May 8, 2010
Henry Ford and George Washington Carver met in their seventies, according to zerowaste.org. They became friends as both had a consuming interest in considering how to not have left-overs that would be sent "away," as we say in permaculture.

While both of these men were quirky, they cared about assisting what we would now call class mobility. Henry Ford wanted his workers to own and drive Fords.

George Washington Carver wanted ordinary farmers to be able to make and use a lot of what they could grow for themselves. He had observed the destruction of soil diversity and fertility by mono-crop cotton culture, and it was ugly. He didn't like ugly. He wanted beauty and visible productive value added on farms.

These men wanted bio-fuels that ordinary people could access. Cheap oil took that off the table for a long time. It may be the spill will put it more on the table in coming months.

I hope that means decentralized production, as David Blume promotes, in the Carver tradition.

Another corndoggle would be a target of mine.

Price instability, distribution problems, and huge blow-ups are reasons bio-fuels could be resurrected from the sort-of dead.

I cannot paint one target in one set place at one set time and think kaboom, problem solved.

Patterns that sustain life and diversity are incredibly complex. Conditions for energy needs and production change.

I understand the allure of wanting to destroy something, cross it off a task list, and consider it done. Any group larger than one encounters politics. Politics can make a person want to destroy something.

My target is diffuse. I want better processes: freedom of information, whistle-blower-protection, more exercise of fraud law, and less protection rackets, for starters.

Feel free to pile on. I'm sure I don't see 360 degrees around on what the targets should be.
Comment
31 of 36
May 8, 2010
When using coal, oil, or gas as a source of energy to make electricity, there is the limitation on efficiency determined by Carnot, and further determined by technology. Eg. a coal fired boiler making steam to turn an electric generator via a turbine is at best about 35% efficient. A nuclear plant is even lower, and a car/truck engine is even lower yet in efficiency. For example a ~20% efficient car means that ~80% of the energy of the fuel is lost to the environment. This is unacceptable in this day and age. This is an example of why we are posioning ourselves with all the wasted energy and matter released to the environment. Nuclear further assumes the continued quasi-military society to look after the waste forever essentially. The comparison chart is an excellent idea, and there are more rows and columns to be filled in, in order to enhance our understanding of the choices we are making. Eric
Comment
32 of 36
May 9, 2010
Hi Mary! Long time no hear.

--------" My target is diffuse. I want better processes: freedom of information, whistle-blower-protection, more exercise of fraud law, and less protection rackets, for starters."----------

All good starters I think.
Comment
33 of 36
May 9, 2010
Hi Mary:

I was hoping you would express yourself along those lines of conclusion. Beautifully put.... thank you for replying....

.....Bill
PS: I also believe Rudolf Diesel wanted bio fuel produced by American farmers to fuel his engine revolution.... not centralized oil companies..
Comment
34 of 36
May 9, 2010
Hi Bill and Fred, thanks for the sucking up on Mother's Day. I have a kid in crisis who is too old to be helped by his mom, so I needed that.

One more lob of my feisty keyboard fingers here.

If they try to resurrect that corndoggle thing, well, usually I am hail Mary full of grace, but I will not be full of anything resembling grace, God willing. Those guys deserve to boil in their own corn oil for that scam, though just eating it would probably finish them off slower and with more suffering.

David Blume has the copious history of the whole thing down better than I, so kudos to David.

Alcohol Can Be a Gas probably gives the long form of the story.

My short telling is that the gaggle of early geniuses never intended this fossil thing, and if they were around, they would be giving the cronies some cogent advice.

It requires labor to do alcohol as David explains, but we have a surplus of people with no jobs.

Give me a break!
No image available
Comment
35 of 36
Anonymous
June 16, 2010
One thing wind proponents (solar as well) is they ignore the variable nature and real cost of these technologies...wind is so variable that in order to integrate it into the grid system (unless you are happy with a green energy that flickers your light as the wind blows...actually the NERC standards are so tough on reliability that you won't be able to do this without balancing the wind) it takes fossil fuels, people talk about storage technologies, but these are not even near commercial and the ones that are being looked at are batteries which are also, like fossils, finite resource. So please keep the comparisons real.
Comment
36 of 36
July 2, 2010
I like comparisons but you left one out.

Multi Angular Force Generation
Cost are 1.3 less than solar yet for a home owner unit is 2800% more effective then solar
It needs no government incentives to be cost effective.

Infinite resource
Uses natural forces works endlessly 100% of the time day or night.

Environmentally friendly uses common steel, electrical components none of which will never end up in a land fill. Unlike solar or wind power, gas or coal MAFG can be placed under ground and "yes in your front yard" produces no CO2

Safe Occupation it operates at ground level no need to climb ladders. These units are completely safe other than electrical hazards inherent in power production.

Solution for Global Warming. MAFG emits no CO2.
It can replace coal and gas burning to make electricity. The technology is available to day to do so, once implemented being a 100% efficient and has 100% dependability makes no CO2 it will be just a few short years and burning coal or gas to make electricity will be a thing of the past. A solution is here now.

Jobs all across America both manufacturing and distribution of the MAFG will be here in America. There will be no importation of this product to the USA. MAFG will be an EXPORT. Making America Strong as a leader in RE.

The importation of power to this country has to stop. MAFG will bring energy independence to the world starting here in America.
We can make a change in our environment and economy when it starts here at home!

MAFG is a product that is truly a Modern Marvel, it is 100% Green product that will change the way we think about power. It is the next advancement is the production is electricity, no other RE product comes close to the performance and reliability of the MAFG let alone the overall cost being lower then any other RE.

The chioce is clear.. now that a truly green product that realy works exists.

www.electric-energy-store.com
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza

View Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza's Profile
About: Tor Valenza aka “Solar Fred” is the founder of UnThink Solar, a strategic communications firm dedicated to helping solar companies reach solar customers through... more »
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters