Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Can the US Afford Cap-and-Trade?

By Kristen Sheeran Ph.D., Economics for Equity and the Environment
May 28, 2009 | 22 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

Many Americans are fearful that if we reduce our carbon footprint, we will compromise our quality of life. This fear, however, is unfounded as evidence from around the United States demonstrates. U.S. states vary only modestly in average incomes, but have widely differing per capita emissions.

States like New York, California, Rhode Island, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have per capita emissions roughly one-half of the U.S. average and comparable to per capita emissions in Japan, German, Belgium, and Denmark. They prove that it is possible to have a US lifestyle, with a European sized carbon footprint! If all fifty U.S. states could emulate the per capita emissions of these states, we would go a long way toward our national emissions goals.

In our latest report, Greenhouse Gases and the American Lifestyle: Understanding Interstate Differences in Emissions, we analyze interstate variation in per capita emissions from residential fuel use, electricity use and transportation. Our report finds that the variation in states emissions is the result of many factors, some more controllable than others.

Some parts of the country are colder than others and face greater heating requirements; some are hotter and need more energy for cooling. People who live in rural, low-density states drive more than those who live in urban, high-density areas, resulting in more transportation emissions.

But there are other factors well within states’ control that affect household emissions. The extent of public transportation in urban areas varies widely from state to state; the level of gasoline taxes differs as well. Both of these policies have a direct, measurable effect on automobile usage and thus on transportation emissions. The reliance on coal power for electricity generation has a large impact on residential. Energy efficiency is important too.

The differences between states, though they look large at first glance, seem less so as the reasons why these differences exist become clearer. We can address the differences in impacts between states through smart climate and energy policies. A cap-and-trade program that auctions permits (or a carbon tax) will generate the revenue stream we need to invest in renewable energies, energy efficiency and assist the households that will be most impacted by climate policy.

Above all, information about policies that have succeeded in reducing emissions in some states should be circulated to the rest of the country to demonstrate that it is possible to produce a comfortable American lifestyle with carbon emissions well below average. Following their example more widely is an important first step on the road to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to a sustainable level.

Economists across the country are organizing themselves to demonstrate that the U.S. economy can afford to deal with climate change. This report is just one part of this larger national effort, initiated by Economics for Equity and the Environment Network and our partners at Stockholm Environment Institute – US and Ecotrust.

We’ve launched a new website, RealClimateEconomics.org, that surveys the published literature in climate economics. It demonstrates that the weight of economic evidence supports immediate policy measures to address climate change. These studies show that the cost of preventing climate change can be addressed efficiently and fairly, and that the costs pale in comparison to the costs of inaction. Economics should not be used as the rationale for delaying action on climate change.

Kristen Sheeran is the director of Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3), a nationwide network of economists developing new arguments for environmental protection with a social justice focus. Prior to her role with E3 Network, she was an Associate Professor of Economics at St. Mary's College of Maryland, Maryland's public honors college.

Her research is primarily focused on the tension between equity and efficiency in climate change mitigation. She has published articles in Environmental and Resource Economics, Ecological Economics, Climatic Change, Journal of Economic Issues, Eastern Economic Journal, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, and Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. Her book, Saving Kyoto with Graciela Chichilnisky, will be published later this year by New Holland Press.

To watch a video interview with Dr. Kristen Sheenan in which she discusses this report, click here.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

22 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 22

Anonymous

May 28, 2009

The link to the new website does not work, perhaps because it is misspelled (the correct spelling is realclimateeconomics.org).

The article states without proof: "...the cost of preventing climate change can be addressed efficiently and fairly, and that the costs pale in comparison to the costs of inaction. Economics should not be used as the rationale for delaying action on climate change."

It is, however, more notable for the things it does not state:
1) That cap and trade plans currently before congress will be very expensive and that such expense will hit some communities and industries very hard
2) That cap and trade policies won't greatly influence world CO2 emissions because they don't address directly the underlying problem that renewable energy technologies are too expensive for developing economies such and those of China and India

An economic report comparing the cost and effectiveness of cap and trade versus a similar expenditure in R&D or even a carbon tax might be interesting--this one sounds like short-sighted dogma.

Steven

Comment
2 of 22

e-patrick-mosman-41976

May 29, 2009

There is an old saying "Look before you leap" and 'Cap and Trade' advocates should be looking at Europe's cap and trade failure:
"A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/glover-carbon-market-pollution
A few may recall that Enron was a leader in promoting 'cap and trade.' Enron lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to "reduce" global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out. Today the Wall Street commodity and energy traders, hedge fund managers, carbon credit sellers, need I mention Al Gore, and shady operators are salivating at the prospect of the millions if not billions to be made while everyone, including Obama's middle class, pays the bill in the higher costs of practically everything. Madoff is a piker compared to the fleecing of the people that the government is proposing with 'cap and trade'.
By tying another tax chain to the anchor of economic meltdown facing the United States today, raising taxes on individuals and, in particular, the oil and coal industries that are two viable private sector industries that are ready, willing and able to spend their own and private investors' money today on developing new sources of energy, as Brazil has done in the last 20 years and having government bureaucrats direct the US economy is a recipe for a disaster.

Comment
3 of 22

Therese

May 29, 2009

If cap and trade is a failure, we will not have time to try "something else." Instead, we'll end up having to pay for global climate change effects on us and our planet. I'm more hopeful that individuals will implement their own environmental changes that collectively will drive down our CO2 production. The other thing that will be important is wage restructuring so that the rich come down to earth a bit and the poor become less poor so that even people of modest means can afford all this change. I'm personally tired of the rich people bidding up prices just because they can afford to pay through the nose for their goodies while the rest of us have to scrape by. This is not the America I saw as a much younger adult.

Comment
4 of 22

paul-tousignant-111847

May 29, 2009

The goal seems to be reducing carbon emissions to reduce so-called global warming - this is a non-issue because global warming is just a flawed theory.

The alternate goal is to raise money to fund R&D and deployment of renewable sources of energy - this is worthwhile, to reduce actual pollution, which CO2 is not.

We are going to be using oil and gas for decades because it will take that long before renewables reach the scale and economics to replace fossil fuels.

The US has the oil and gas within our borders. If we were smart, we'd put people to work retreiving our own fuel instead of paying hostile nations for it. The income that would be generated - royalties, sales and income taxes - would produce more money than cap-and-trade.

Instead of putting the burden on taxpayers to pay for the bad science that so many have foolishly embraced, the US should create more jobs and tax revenue by producing our own resources.

Cap-and-trade is wrong, global warming is wrong, buying fuel from hostile nations is wrong; increasing employment is right, growing US businesses is right, and earning tax revenue instead of confiscating it from the population is right. Why can't the politicians and activists do the right things???

Comment
5 of 22

Anonymous

May 29, 2009

The problem with "Cap and Trade," is that it will have devistating effects on the middle and lower classes, the same classes that need the most support right now. Perhaps having incremental increases in residential energy such as CA accross the country would provide additinal income for the utility to help offset the higher costs of solar.

The problem with most renewables is it works only in areas and not accross the board. For example I live in a very treed community, therefore solar is not an option, and wind power is the middle of a city has never gone over well, therefore the most I could contribute is improve the energy efficency of my property. With that said, is it fair those in my shoes are penalized for having limited means regarless of finance to assist with the lowering of emissions.

A common sense approach needs to developed and put forth. Most of what is discussed is too extreme to implement without large casuality.

Comment
6 of 22

mike-miller-78300

May 29, 2009

There is a solution to world hunger now, using the Cap and Trade logic. All the fat people in the world will be taxed and the money given to some guy in Africa to not eat. That way he can save money until he CAN eat and then this "fat people tax" will be given to the next starving person... and this cycle will continue until there is no longer world hunger. I think Al Gore will make his next 100 million off this logic.

Comment
7 of 22

peterlynch

May 29, 2009

To be straight forward and direct

1. the costs pale in comparison to the costs of inaction. Economics should not be used as the rationale for delaying action on climate change.

This atatement is absolutely true

2. We need a carbon tax this cap and trade is flat out silly. Investors NEED certainly, they INTENSELY dislike uncertainity. Cap & Trade is uncertain prices, Carbon tax is certainty. Cap & Trade will not work for that very simple and OBVIOUS reason.

Comment
8 of 22

rodney-sobin-174243

May 29, 2009

1. McKinsey & Co. and many others indicate that many GHG reduction approaches, particularly energy efficiency measures have net negative marginal cost, i.e., come out ahead. They warn, though, that the invisible hand won't achieve the reductions due to market failures (such as landlord-tenant problem, info availability, among others). Thus, policy is needed. Also, ACEEE and others point to numerous efficiency measures at ~3 cents/kWh--cheaper than new supply.

2. EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey suggest allowance prices of up to $17/metric ton CO2-equiv by 2020. Is this large? $20/metric t applied to gasoline is 18.2 cents/gal. For my electric utility (which has a fair amount of nuclear so is less carbon-intense than avg US power), $20/t amounts to less than a penny/kWh. (BTW, past EPA analyses of compliance costs and econ impacts have typically overestimated costs.)

3. EPA analysis also shows very small reductions in growth of household economic consumption--economy and incomes will still grow but a fraction of a % less than base case. But this is only IF allowance revenues are returned to citizens via rebate or similar means--which can also mitigate impacts on low income people. Congress could mess this up easily.

3. Data from '07/'08 before the financial crash show minimal correlation between state electricity prices and unemployment rates (r=0.136) and modest positive correlation between median family income and electric rates. Correlation is not causality but this detracts from idea that cheap power brings prosperity and raising rates a few cents brings poverty.

4. AWEA reports 85k employed in US wind industry ('08). DOE reports 81,278 coal mine employment in US. To be fair, add 60k coal power plants & 31k coal transport. Still, not bad for green jobs and green econ.

5. Cheap coal has hi cost--mountaintop removal, air, water, GHG, physical hazards,... and a study in Kentucky found that coal counties weren't more prosperous than non-coal counties.

Comment
9 of 22

walter-daniels-40371

May 29, 2009

The credibility of the arguments is found in the statement. "States like New York, California, Rhode Island, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have per capita emissions roughly one-half of the U.S. average and comparable to per capita emissions in Japan, German, Belgium, and Denmark. They prove that it is possible to have a US lifestyle, with a European sized carbon footprint!" One, they are mostly Hydroelectric states. Two, most of the country is divided into several "Grids." Which means electricity is not restricted to any one state. Electricity generated in Indiana, for example, a "High Carbon" state, goes to other states, when supply exceeds demand there. Making it possible for other states to be "Low Carbon."
Therefore her "example" is nonsense, and a deliberate "mis-Statement." Given that she would use such an "example," the rest of her arguments are equally suspect. Not to mention that "Cap and Trade" has failed where it was tried in Europe. Conservation, along with judicious use of "renewable" technology where appropriate, can and will work. Forcing a "solution" on unwilling users, cannot, and never will.

Comment
10 of 22

mary-saunders-73470

May 29, 2009

People in places other than D.C. seem increasingly unwilling to have the fruits of their labor pass by a black hole. If D.C.-centric people continue with schemes to suck more dollars, people in the hinterlands will begin to trade other things, roll their eyes at D.C., and move on with their lives. During the Great Depression, localities issued scrip. The jobs that have been lost paid in dollars that went by taxing authorities. As those kinds of jobs go away, people will survive. Craig's List, Amazon, and E-Bay allow them to trade the too-much-stuff so many U.S. people have for other people's stuff they may need. Informal special-interest on-line networks are also places where people can trade. At least here, we are deciding to rip up input-hungry grass and plant useful plants before the oil spigot gets turned off abruptly. Cubans had to do this much more precipitously when the Soviet Union stopped sending them oil. Australian and other permaculture practitioners rushed to Cuba to help out, and other case studies of productivity with diversity are now widely desseminated on the web, e.g., Amish examples, Willie Smits, Geoff Lawton, Sepp Holzer, and many others. As I look around me, people are riding bikes. If you drive, they are like gnats. The wood stove people were backed up this past winter. The last I heard, there was a natural gas glut, and increasing awareness of the possible toxicity of burning gas for household use is leading to induction stove-tops and ground-source geothermal heat pumps. This stuff is happening without cap-and-trade. After-the-fact attempts to appear heroic are a U.S. government way. As people increasingly rely on the internet for information, it seems unlikely the powers that be will carry it off this time. D.C. inhales an incredible portion of the productive capacity of the country, but the country is extraordinarily capable of productive capacity, when necessity insists.

Comment
11 of 22

e-patrick-mosman-41976

May 29, 2009

"Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations and now despite computer projections failing to forecast a cooling phase, some experts provide an additional 10 to 20 year window for continued cooling bring the total to a 20 to 30 year of cooling in a predicted warming world. Now we have a number of global warmiing advocates predicting an extended cooling period while their computer programs continue to predicate global warming; The 3,000 Argo ocean monitors, operational since 2003, have found no ocean warming,only a slight decrease. Those environmentalist advocating to scrub 'global warming' from their vocabulary and replace it with meaningless, vague descriptions intended to confuse the public are continuing the greatest scam since Madoff made off with $50 billion.
They should expand their knowledge of the science of "our deteriorating atmosphere." nee 'global warming' which has been a significant part of this planet's creation without input or causation by human beings.They could start by studying the 650 scientists who issued a strong dissent to the man made global warming theory in a letter to the recent UN Climate change conference held in Poland. Unfortunately any one who opposes the computer generated doom and gloom scenarios is labeled a 'denier' or 'heretic'. There is a long list of science 'heretics', Copernicus and Galileo are two, that proved to be right against a false consensus scientific belief. While Einstein and Bohr had headline grabbing civilized discussions, often described as debates, on Bohr's theory of quantum mechanics, any attempt in today's world to conduct a learned discussion of global warming, or cooling, or CO2 is met with vitriol filled attacks on men and women with impeccable scientific credentials. while paying homage to a trio of gurus of climate change, nee global warming, who are a motley crew. To be continued.

Comment
12 of 22

e-patrick-mosman-41976

May 29, 2009

-Al Gore a non-scientists, a C university student, a divinity school dropout, a lawyer with no science studies, an majority owner/investor in a company selling 'Carbon Credits' with a vested interest in limiting CO2 for profiteering and the producer of a movie that the British Courts found to have 9 or 11 inaccuracies and could not be shown in British schools without identifying and explanation of the inaccurate claims.support@renewableenergyworld.com -James Hansen, manager of the NASA department that produced incorrect temperature data for six years, 2000- 2006, more recently issued completely incorrect temperature data for October 2008 which led to headlines claiming the 'hottest October on record" and testified in an English Court that civil disobedience and destruction of property is proper to reduce CO2 emissions. Mr. Hansen would have been fired for his poor management effort. -Michael Mann, a 'scientist' who used statistical legerdemain to eradicate the Medieval warm period and the Middle Age 'Little Ice Age'to give a perfectly straight handle on his 'Hockeystick' curve which was debunked by two Canadian statistical experts but is still the centerpiece of Al Gore's movie. Another candidate for firing for his agenda driven misuse of scientific methods. http://www.americanthinker.com... Gore, Hansen and Mann would have been exposed as political hacks and scientific frauds years ago if real scientists were given a chance to be heard. The intent of the CO2 causes AGW 'Chicken Little the sky is falling' scare is to impose government control on the total energy market. To shut down a gasoline or diesel engine without stopping the fuel flow it is simple, plug the exhaust pipe and in the old days a readily available potato or corn cob could be used. CO2 is the exhaust of the world's greatest economic engine ever imagined and stopping,rationing, taxing or controlling CO2 emissions will effectively place the world's economy with politicians and environmentalists.

Comment
13 of 22

paul-schechter-71211

May 29, 2009

Wow..I am amazed at some of the responses to this post! Let me be clear: the U.S. desperately needs strong, national climate change policy! The opportunity is finally here and most of the posts on this RE form are negative…what gives?

True, Cap and Trade is not perfect in all respects, but it is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing—the current status quo. To poster 3, sorry people will not just change their ways voluntarily—the human psyche doesn't work that way. We think microscopically and will only make changes after we are significantly personally affected. Letting the free market handle it simply will not work.

To those who think carbon is not a problem. We're running an uncontrolled experiment on the only home we'll ever get. We're using hundreds of millions of years of stored solar energy in a fraction of a second on the Earth's timescale, without regard to potential consequences. Even if you don't believe in climate change, ocean acidification is a proven phenomenon with dire consequences. We are destroying the most basic food source for the largest ecosystems in the world. You better believe that if the ocean's food chain collapses, we will all feel it hardcore.

To those who think Cap and Trade will be a massive tax burden on the middle and lower class. As poster 8 stated, the actual energy cost increase to the avg American will amount to less than a penny per kWh. Personally, I think America would greatly benefit from increased energy costs. Our unsustainable culture has been built around an abundance of near-free energy for over a century. As a result, our energy usage is some of the most inefficient in the world. Does a single couple really need to live in a 3000sq ft home? Does a McMansion that is a 45 minute commute from an urban center truly offer a better quality of life than living close to work and other amenities? It is time we start paying the real cost of these ludicrous lifestyles, and stop bitching about $.01/kWh.

Comment
14 of 22

paul-tousignant-111847

May 29, 2009

peter-lynch: "the costs pale in comparison to the costs of inaction."

paul-schecter: the U.S. desperately needs strong, national climate change policy"

These statements are completely, totally false. These are the kinds of things the chicken-littles have used to scare the crap out of the less intelligent portion of the population.

Global warming is a flawed theory based on unprovable data. Say all you want about ice-cores, but they still provide only an estimation of the year and carbon content.

Another fact: CO2 is not a pollutant.

Fact: China and other third world countries are building coal-fired power plants every three years that will produce so-called GHG's equal to all the emissions that the US and Europe produce every year. Their's is the inaction that needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter what we do if the third world continues to do nothing.

Al Gore uses 14 times the energy in his house as the amount used in the average house, yet he jets around the world telling people to fear global warming - that is hypocritical and cancels out any credibility he might have. He is playing on fear, and profiting from it.

We need to deal with and act on facts, not fear.

Renewables are necessary to eventually eliminate actual pollution (NOx, SOx, mercury, etc.). That's what the entire world needs to address, eventually.

Comment
15 of 22

rodney-sobin-174243

May 29, 2009

Thank you for citing my post, poster #13.

A clarification: my penny/kWh calculation @$20/metric ton CO2-equiv is for my utility in Virginia, which has a substantial amount of nuclear generation. It's emission factor is 1075 lbs CO2/MWh.

DOE reports for 2007 that the national average emissions factor is 1335 lb/MWh. So we end up with about 1.2 cents/kWh impact @$20/metric ton CO2-equiv on avg generation blend of US electricity. (BTW, avg retail electricity price was 9.13 cents/kWh.)

No room to address climate change deniers but it's strange to imagine that so many mainstream scientists in the relevant disciplines are either all dupes or co-conspirators and that somehow Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and a few others are Galileos (some of whom have gone from warming isn't happening to it's happening but natural to it's happening and people might have something to do with it but it's not a big deal to people are affecting it but it's not really a problem and we'll adjust).

I guess some just want to keep using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground and be subsidised for imposing very serious damage on the rest of us and our children. I remember how certain people doubted acid rain and ozone layer degradation and how the Clean Air Act, CAFE standards, etc. were going to lead to economic ruin.

I'd like to know how you add several billion tons of carbon (x 3.67 if you want CO2), NET of absorption by oceans (with its own consequences) and biological fixation, amounting to something like 0.4% of the atmosphere's stock, year in and year out without affecting climate. And how raising CO2 (and CH4 and N2O) concentrations off the ice core record charts doesn't affect climate.

Further, to those fussing over which years of the last decade were or were not the hotest, my local forecast is that next Thursday will be cooler than today and intervening days. Perhaps the approach of summer is a hoax.

Comment
16 of 22

Erich

May 29, 2009

Once the efforts below come to pass to properly account for soil carbon sequestration, it will change much of the accounting comments above.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards Committee. Hosted by Monsanto, this group of diverse interests has been hammering out issues of definition, validation and protocol. The past week, this group have been pressing soil sequestration's roll for climate legislation to congress.
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf

Along these lines internationally, the work of the IBI fostering the application by 13 countries for UN recognition of soil carbon as a sink with biochar as a clean development mechanism will open the door for programs across the globe.
http://www.biochar-international.org/biocharpolicy.html.

Reports:
This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .

This is the single most comprehensive report to date, covering more of the Asian and Australian work;
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf

Comment
17 of 22

James2339

May 30, 2009

Wow! It disheartens me as a concerned citzen to read the comments to this article. Yes this is a very poor article. But what really suprises me is the way that people are using it as a medium to post their opinionated views about what is going on with climate change and energy consumption. If the green movement wants to get anywhere it needs to become more focused and better educated on what the real issues are!

Comment
18 of 22

Bob_Tregilus

May 31, 2009

Cap is good while trade is the single worst idea other than building more coal plants. Americans, and the world, don't need Wall Street market-troll types profiting from efforts to displace use of fossil-fuels in energy production. Carbon marketeers are nothing more than leeches on society. They produce nothing and only skim money from the labor and sweat of others. We need people producing and installing renewable energy capacity. We don't need anti-physiocrat leeches sucking the blood from those efforts.

What we need are renewable energy feed-in tariffs (FITs). The state of Vermont gets it. The city of Gainesville Florida gets it. Ontario, Germany, Spain and many others get it. They figured out we need simple transparent policy tools that are equitable and create long-term stable contracts that inspire investor confidence. There's only one mechanism that achieves those goals and that is FITs. It's time to abandon all the Voodoo economics of RECs, PECs, Green Certificates, tax incentives, and quota systems that are proven failures for incentivizing accelerated renewable energy production and go with what works - FITs.

Comment
19 of 22

natasha-long-82395

June 1, 2009

"Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards Committee. Hosted by Monsanto. "

This comment has one word in it that makes me completely distrust the outcomes of whatever studies they undertake. That word is Monsanto. Any studies in which they are involved are tainted by their involvement. They have proven themselves to be liars (Indian GM Cotton seed studies), destroyers of lives (untold US farmers sued for harvesting and reusing Roundup Ready Seeds), and only interested in their own financial gain. They have pushed (via their influence within the US govt) for the introduction of GM seeds into Europe. I can see that they've managed to nobble some of our MPs though as some are now trying to get GM approved for study in the UK.

I have no idea if Soil Carbon Sequestration is possible or economical, but I do know that if Monsanto say it's a good idea, it's almost certainly not.

Back on topic - I would say FiTs are a very successful method of market stimulation in the markets in which they have been introduced. The UK has has a form of Cap & Trade which has been running for a few years, and which has had little effect on the number of PV systems installed, but with a FiT, people can see the benefits of their outlay almost immediately. Even if AGW is not an imminent threat, the exponential increase in the cost of oil & gas over the next few decades will mean that we need an alternative energy source to ensure poor people like me can afford to light our homes and feed our kids. And don't give me that old rubbish about how 'green' nuclear is, because I don't want to pay for my energy 4 times! Three times is more than enough. (think about subsidies/tax breaks....) Plus also, not a single nuclear power plant ON EARTH has been finished on time or on budget.

Comment
20 of 22

john-carr-174305

June 1, 2009

A few small things...
We live in a dig and burn economy.
That's what's got to change.
Even the, not so subtle, carbon credit is another vestige of dig and burn mentality.
It's like we're living in a hunter-gatherer energy society.

Energy should be farmed.
Similar to an agrarian society we need to shift to a Solarian society.

Don't sell energy.
Manufacture, sell, maintain and recycle the equipment to capture, store, and distribute energy.
Show the world a better way without carbon.
Make that way the cheapest and carbon will take care of itself.

The current ideas are like whips.
They don't build a bridge to the future.
They punish.
You can hear the frustration in the previous comments.

Honestly, we need to STOP talking about carbon.

Our conversations and public policy need to be centered around moving towards a Solarian economy.

It is interesting to me that most of the people who subscribe here are interested in moving ahead.
Yet, it is so easy to get embroiled in arguing about what we have to let go.

The manufacturers, installers, and people who sponsor this web site are the pioneers of the Solarian economy to come.

It's gonna happen because we are doing it now.

Have faith, work hard.

Comment
21 of 22

paul-tousignant-111847

June 2, 2009

John,

Your dream is a noble one, but there is a protracted transition period between reality and your solarian society; we will not see it in our lifetimes.

Until solar and other renewables produce electricity at a lower price than current plentiful sources (coal, gas, oil), they cannot displace them, especially in developing nations.

China can produce electricity from coal for as little as $0.03/KWh - they will not give that up for solar at $1.00/KWh, because even with their poverty-level wages they still have to produce more cheaply than the competition to compete.

Comment
22 of 22

john-carr-174305

June 2, 2009

Paul,
Thanks for the kind remarks. It's not as bad as you think.

It costs the Chinese about $0.50/watt, base plate, to build a power plant.
At coal being about $1.00 per ton in China, and the life of the boiler at 25 years, the retail electrical cost is about $0.03/kWh, (virtually at cost).
The major factors are equipment costs, fuel costs, labor, and the lack of environmental fees.

A solar panel installed at $0.60/w is also capable of producing power at $0.05 kWh, with a life of 25 years. It is a break even analysis. The panel merely offsets the cost of electricity. It makes no profit.

But there are environmental costs to China. Ask them. China is quickly poisoning itself. The Chinese are not idiots. They see the problems and are correcting them. Unfortunately, not fast enough. In many cases in China coal isn't simply convenient, it is the only choice.

The cost goals for the solar industry to be competitive in the U.S. are more easily attainable. At $0.75/Wp, in the southern plains and southwest, solar is the lowest cost provider. This is not pie in the sky. Applied Materials representatives thought it was attainable in the near term (Thin Film Conference last December).

All that hard work in the laboratories and shops is seeing the light of day.
It really IS getting cheaper!
I know getting to a Solarian economy may take more than my lifetime.
It's the only energy path that doesn't end in a dead end.
I am enjoying the work, the friends, and the money along the way.
The sooner we all get to it, and stop talking about carbon, the better.

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!