Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Myth of Cheap Fossil Fuels – A Roadblock for Renewable Energy

By Ralf Sigrist, Nordex USA
August 20, 2010   |   36 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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.

36 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 36
August 20, 2010
Mr. Sigrist is obviously an interested participant in the discussion about the viability and cost of renewable energy. So am I.

He makes an interesting point - you cannot replace cheap with expensive. I would add that you cannot replace cheap AND reliable with expensive AND unpredictable. No matter how well engineered, wind turbines and solar collectors share a common disadvantage - their output is only as reliable as the weather and cannot be controlled by human operators.

Power is the ultimate in "just in time" businesses. Though you can put a limited amount of energy into a battery, there are losses in both the storage and the extraction process. There is also a very limited rate at which the storage process takes place. In contrast, filling up an automobile with gasoline can be equivalent to hooking up the car to a 10,000,000 watt power line for a brief period of time. (Assuming a 20 gallon tank filled up in 4 minutes.)

Sigrist has a very tough reality to overcome with his proposal that wind is cheap. The problem is that wind is only cheap when the wind is blowing. If the wind is not blowing even Bill Gates cannot buy electricity generated from wind mills.

Due to the vagaries of the weather, wind turbine owners are stuck with an expensive capital asset that can only produce power when it feels like it. About 60-80% of the time, turbines just ugly, extremely tall blots on the landscape.

There is an emission free option with extremely low fuel costs that can produce on-demand power. I used to run one of those kinds of almost magical power plants when I was the engineer officer of a nuclear powered submarine.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
No image available
Comment
2 of 36
Anonymous
August 20, 2010
The author writes: "In fact, the federal government pours billions of dollars annually into fossil fuels, grossly distorting the energy market."

Subsidies for fossil fuels are a tiny perturbation on the market--NOT a gross distortion. On a per unit of energy basis government subsidies are in the ballpark of 1 cent/kWh for fossil fuels. If every subsidy for coal, oil, and natural gas went away tomorrow the market place would be very little changed. On a per unit of energy basis, subsidies for renewables, such as wind, are much larger than those for fossil fuels. Furthermore, RPS requirements give renewables a large share of the market in which they face zero competition from fossil fuels. The term "gross distortion" WOULD apply to these perturbations.
Steven
Comment
3 of 36
August 20, 2010
Mr. Adams all electric generators are intermittent.

The nuke at Crystal River, Florida has been shutdown for almost a year now. How's that for unreliable. It's going to take $250 million to fix it. Back in 1996 the same plant was shut down for 1.5 years.

Some tough questions need to be asked of the nuclear industry:

Why won't Wall Street finance nuclear? Progress Energy is billing customers now for a nuke plant that won't put out it first kWh for at least 15 years, if at all.

Why does nuclear get a free pass from Congress on insurance liability? Price-Anderson Act.

Why does it cost so much to boil water? $22 billion for new Crystal River 2200MW nuke plant. That's $10/watt.

The BP oil spill has shown us that the worst case scenario can happen. What is the result of a nuclear worst case scenario?

Where does the Uranium come from and how clean is the mining process?

What is the industry going to do about nuclear waste storage?

Has the NRC approved the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design?

The history of nuclear has shown that it is not a cheap, safe, and reliable source of electricity. The opposite is true.

Money spent on developing more nuclear power would be better spent on energy efficiency measures, smart grid development with a focus on distributed generation and integrated energy storage, and renewable energy development.
Comment
4 of 36
August 20, 2010
I have been watching the development of wind, solar and biofuels and a few other elements of renewable energy using patent landscaping tools. A few years ago, I worked on a wind power strategy (not for Nordex) and found over 14,000 patents. When I monitor solar, there are more. My 2009 model of technology development for algae biofuels has 8000+ patents.
With this volume of patenting, it is difficult to view renewable energy as a just-in-the-early-research stage activity.

I believe that the energy area is ripe for a Clayton Christensen type disruption. We need to let it happen. It would be even better if the "public" got on board and asked for it explictly. I hope the the amount of serious discuss on renewable energy continues to rise and that we can avoid apples and oranges comparisons in discussions to come.
Comment
5 of 36
August 20, 2010
@frank-mcintyre

Imperfect is not the same as intermittent. Though the Crystal River plant has been shut down due to a discontinuity found in its containment during a major repair effort requiring cutting a hole in that containment, here are the percentages of total rated capacity generated by the US fleet of 104 reactors during the first week in August - a time when there has been a high demand on power:

94.9% 95.1% 94.6% 94.8% 95.3% 96.3% 96.7%

Those are pretty fair numbers - an A in most school grading systems.

Wall Street views nuclear plant construction as a new industry. There are many unknowns and investors do not like unknowns. One of the biggest risks is a sovereign risk - will an arm of the US, state or local government step in and stop a plant from operating even if the designers and builders do their jobs? The experience of Shoreham, where a $6 billion investment was never allowed to operate and generate revenue still raises questions.

Then there is the Wall Street question that confuses most customers - will an investment in nuclear lead to an over-capacity situation that pushes down the selling price of electricity for all other generators, leading to losses in previously made investments.

Please do not denigrate boiling water. The US burns about a billion tons of coal at an average cost of more than $30 per ton in the act of boiling water to produce electricity every year. That process also releases about 2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

More than half of the world's known uranium resources are in Canada and Australia. We have enough, even with a very inefficient fuel cycle that uses just 0.6% of the potential energy, to last for more than 100 years. If we begin recycling, we can increase that by a factor of at least 50 and possibly by a factor of 90. Then we also have thorium which is 4 times as abundant as uranium.

The average cost of electricity generation from nuclear plants is just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour in the US.
Comment
6 of 36
August 20, 2010
The NRC approved the AP1000 design in 2005. Then it changed the rules and required that all new plants conform to a rule increasing the resistance to airplane impacts. That required a change in the shield building walls to increase strength to resist impact. Once that change was made, the NRC reviewers became concerned that the change lowered the wall resistance to hurricanes and tornados. There are more tests in progress, but I have spoken to one of the people on the review team. He is confident that the concerns are being addressed and that the final design approval for the revised design will be issued in the first half of 2011.

Energy efficiency and smart grid technologies will not overcome the need to generate reliable power. Renewable energy systems that depend on the weather will never replace the steady, human adjustable power from coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants.

The investment that a previous generation made in nuclear energy plants has paid off in spades. Nearly every plant is already fully amortized, each one still has at least 20 years of life remaining, and each one generates electricity for a cost that is about 1/4th of the wholesale price of electricity in the US.

Every plant carries at least $300 million in primary insurance and participates in a pool arrangement where each plant would contribute $96 million to cover the costs of any accident affecting the public. That yields liability coverage of $10 billion. No claim has ever exceeded the primary insurance level, even TMI.

At TMI we had a coolant leak that uncovered a core. We had fuel melting. We had numerous operator errors due to misinterpreting confusing indications. There were a lot of fear stories spread, but no one even got hurt and even the highest exposure to an operator was less than the normally allowed limit for a year of working.

When wind mills and solar panels can generate power on demand, they might compete. Until then, they need mandates and constant subsidies.
Comment
7 of 36
August 22, 2010
We will always have intermittent wind and some days the sun will be brighter than other days, but renewable sources will always exist as long as we exist. The enormous amount of money required for building nuclear plants, and more important the maintaining of those plants, is clearly an indicator that we cannot go the route of nuclear. Nuclear advocates need to be confronted with the fact that nuclear energy presents many more dangers to society and environment by making enriched uranium more prevalent and creating radioactive waste. The old adage that citizens are scared of nuclear energy because they're uneducated is losing its effectiveness. The drawbacks of nuclear energy are clear, and all of us here know the feebleness of fossil fuels, and how they are depleting much faster than they will ever be restored. I am learning, and other people on the grassroots level are learning. I'll just say that I am a supporter of renewable energy through and through. Renewable energy sources are fighting to claim their rightful place in the world of energy. We should only take from the earth what we need, and we should only give back to the earth what the ecosystem can tolerate. Merely having solar panels on a home would cut energy costs and lessen dependencies on utility corporations. A $200 electric bill may become $75, and the sun will rise everyday and a solar panel requires much less maintenance than a nuclear reactor.
Comment
8 of 36
August 22, 2010
Goodness, jeremyk, I have been screaming this for years and no one seem to want to hear it. There is no excuse for not having solar panels for sale at Lowe's and other hardware stores. You can get them free on your adding machine, so why are they making it sound like it will cost millions of dollars to put them on your roof and keep them working?
Comment
9 of 36
August 23, 2010
Gasoline can be safely converted from it's commonly utilized mixture of 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of fuel into a Vapor that's 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.With this, even the largest SUV could easily get 50+ MPG, & emit a fraction of the Emissions of an EPA mandated 14.7/1 Air/Fuel Ratio.Power will increase by over 50 %, and Engine life will more than double.I'm not the first to realize this, not by a long shot ! Do a search on Tom Ogle, then http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html.But, when a Vehicle Emissions inspection is done, a Vehicle's Oxygen Sensors must detect a level of polluting exhaust emissions that will indicate that gasoline is being consumed at 14.7/1.With a vaporized air/fuel mixture of 100/1, O2 Sensors will not work, and an O2 Sensor failure code will result during an Emissions Inspection.That's the Law for all Gasoline powered Vehicles from 1996 to the present.Thus,it is entirely possible to fail an Emissions Inspection for not generating enough polluting Exhaust Emissions! And not one Politician or "Concerned EnvironMENTAList" will dare to question this insane EPA-OBD II Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law that only serves to benefit the Big Oil Corporations ! And it is worth noting that this Law was passed during the Clinton Administration with Al Gore's enthusiastic support ! I've tried to contact Mr. Al Gore to ask him about this, and he refuses to answer.So how about everyone that's read this ? Again, "Why is it illegal for any Gasoline powered vehicle manufactured from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting Exhaust Emissions?" Can You, or anyone that you know answer my question ? If not, then why not ? If there really is a shortage of Petroleum, and such a problem with Air Pollution, then someone really should !
Comment
10 of 36
August 23, 2010
Gasoline can be safely converted from it's commonly utilized mixture of 14.7 parts of air to 1 part of fuel into a Vapor that's 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.With this, even the largest SUV could easily get 50+ MPG, & emit a fraction of the Emissions of an EPA mandated 14.7/1 Air/Fuel Ratio.Power will increase by over 50 %, and Engine life will more than double.I'm not the first to realize this, not by a long shot ! Do a search on Tom Ogle, then http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html.But, when a Vehicle Emissions inspection is done, a Vehicle's Oxygen Sensors must detect a level of polluting exhaust emissions that will indicate that gasoline is being consumed at 14.7/1.With a vaporized air/fuel mixture of 100/1, O2 Sensors will not work, and an O2 Sensor failure code will result during an Emissions Inspection.That's the Law for all Gasoline powered Vehicles from 1996 to the present.Thus,it is entirely possible to fail an Emissions Inspection for not generating enough polluting Exhaust Emissions! And not one Politician or "Concerned EnvironMENTAList" will dare to question this insane EPA-OBD II Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law that only serves to benefit the Big Oil Corporations ! And it is worth noting that this Law was passed during the Clinton Administration with Al Gore's enthusiastic support ! I've tried to contact Mr. Al Gore to ask him about this, and he refuses to answer.So how about everyone that's read this ? Again, "Why is it illegal for any Gasoline powered vehicle manufactured from 1996 to the present to emit too little polluting Exhaust Emissions?" Can You, or anyone that you know answer my question ? If not, then why not ? If there really is a shortage of Petroleum, and such a problem with Air Pollution, then someone should !
Comment
11 of 36
August 25, 2010
Not All that Gleams is Gold

"Keep it cheap" is an argument for using fossil sources,
But side effects cause health defects like TV adds on pills,
And nuclear is not too clear on being safe and sound,
Renewables can be reliable, if linked the world around.

The sun always shines some place and the wind is always blowing,
The waves and currents of the ocean are forever going,
"Cheap" is the man made word that seems to forget what beauty means,
When we hold not all is gold that sends forth golden gleams.
Comment
12 of 36
August 25, 2010
With all due respect to my colleagues from the nuclear industry - how can anyone so blatantly disregard the issues surrounding storage of spent fuel rods and other irradiated wastes. I spent time in the early 80's working as an engineer on refueling efforts and spent fuel storage. Many of the isotopes residing in spent fuel rods have a half-life in excess of several thousand years. So I can't help but laugh when I hear other professionals talking about "safe" storage of such materials. In facilities all around our country, utilities pack spent fuel rods tighter and tighter into spent fuel pools, always with a report to "prove" that it's a safe condition - that is, unless they were to lose cooling water, then all the calcs go out the window. And storing wastes underground, cozied up to our water tables, makes little more sense.

Waste issues aside, just the simple numbers of cost and job creation should be enough to convince most people. Most of the last round of nuclear plants ended up costing $2-$3 billion to bring on line - with many of them 100% over budget or more. Estimates on this new generation of plants predicts they'll come on line for around $10B. Divide $10 billion by, say $4000 for a new residential solar hot water system, and you get 2.5 million solar systems installed - I couldn't guess how many new jobs that would represent, but I'd venture it's a lot more than a single nuke plant would make.

I know, we still need more electricity, and solar thermal panels don't necessarily get us there. But you can run such cost scenarios many different ways. In the end, you can't disregard the fact that nuclear plants generate some of the most deadly material that has ever existed, and cost a literal fortune. Surely, so many brilliant minds can come up with a better solution.
Comment
13 of 36
August 25, 2010
" When wind mills and solar panels can generate power on demand, they might compete. Until then, they need mandates and constant subsidies. "

Thanks god I do not share your attitude.

I prefer the non-radioactive one. But yeah, I already receive 100% renewable energy supplied by the grid since 2006, my utility Ecopower cvba sources
52% of its electricity generating energy from combined heat and power biomass (using locally grown switchgrass + other agro wastes + local or imported wood pellets)
or from biofuels (locally grown oilseed crops, oil burned in ICE power generators, remaining organic wastes recycled as animal farm food or converted in an anaerobe digester into methane biogas for CHP combustion and into compost for farmland improvement)
38% from owned wind turbines
6% from owned solar PV panels installed on client account homes
2% from run-of-river hydro power
2% from a few small scale city waste anaerobe digester producing methane biogas powering gasturbines generators.
Comment
14 of 36
August 25, 2010
And in june 2010, Ecopower cvba received building permits to install 45 new wind turbines, to cover new accounts power demand, if I can believe the information provided in their 6 monthly bulletin review sent to my postal address.
The future new plug in battery/hydrogen/fuelcell ICE vehicles can run on solar, wind, geo-thermal and even old fossil fuels and costly nuclear that have waste energy at night. My home GRID tied solar PV system runs my home, help my utility during Peak Hours and I will take on their excess energy at night so it won't be lost, by also charging my Plug-in vehicle. If I had V2G I could save the off peak excess and sell it back at a premium on Peak.

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/go/windalert/article/1023780/?DCMP=EMC-CONWindpowerWeekly
Germany's draft National Renewable Energy Action Plan has been rubberstamped by the federal government. Onshore wind energy is expected to increase from about 27.5GW in 2010 to 35.7GW in 2020, while offshore will expand from 212MW in 2010 to about 10GW in 2020. In all, German wind energy capacity is expected to amount to 45.8GW in 2020 compared with 27.7GW in 2020. In 2020, the wind fleet will generate around 104.4TWh, up from an expected 44.8TWh in 2010.
Comment
15 of 36
August 25, 2010
Rod Adams : I still have to see a radioactive decommissioned wind turbine or a radioactive decommissioned concentrating solar mirror panel, compared to a radioactive to be decommissioned nuclear reactor core demanding remotely operated vehicles to get the job done, too hazardous for people and very expensive for the utility, given that it then takes years to demobilize such an NPP in such a way.
And if reprocessing fuel rods was that great, why is Kazakhstan gearing up to open new uranium mines, to supply the Asians with the new super highly enriched mined grades they need for their new build ups ?
I fondly remember the TV news images in the 1980's, of the mammoth cargo ship boarding a port in Europe, to load up steel drums full with radioactive end wastes generated by NPP's, to be dumped into the Atlantic, until zodiac's from Greenpeace staged protest actions shown on TV, to try to stop the practice, leading to the development of the half built Nevada Yucca Mountain NPP waste storage repository, at $18 billion the half built Garage storage facility.
Of course, don't get me started about the millions of depleted uranium shells littering the landscapes of Kuwait and Iraq, courtesy of Uncle Sam's sales representatives . . .
Comment
16 of 36
August 25, 2010
Excellent article. So what that he is an interested party, his statements are all accurate. When we finally accelerate our move to renewables, the costs will dramatically go down, such as we've seen with PV. The expected cost per kWh for concentrating solar is expected to be 3.5 cents by 2020.

Meanwhile, costs for fossil fuels will rise. Hidden and externalized costs are worse than many know, especially for coal.Princeton University Professor Robert Williams estimated the external cost of air pollution from coal-fired electricity using methodology established by the European Commission's "ExternE" project. The result? The average U.S. coal plant creates about 13.5 cents of "harm" for every kWh it produces. Is that sustainable?

And nuclear? Won't be a drop in the bucket. New plant construction estimates are astronomical, in the 10B range, if they can get permitted. And one of their biggest subsidies is they get public (federal government, taxpayer) insurance, because no company will insure one.
Comment
17 of 36
August 25, 2010
His statements are not accurate. We have to get rid of fossil fuels but we won't do it with articles that warp reality to suit our wishes.

When the 70 billion is divided by units of energy you can see that removing said subsidies would have little impact on cost.

There is a reason few of us have displaced all of our electrical use with solar panels on our roofs. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that reason is.

A lot of big name environmentalists have changed their minds about nuclear. It can't scale up to replace all of our energy use but it certainly could be used very effectively to shore up a renewable energy grid:

"Reframing Nuclear Power as an Ally of Renewable Energy"


http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2010/02/reframing-nuclear-power-as-ally-of.html
No image available
Comment
18 of 36
Anonymous
August 25, 2010
I really liked the post by Rod Adams who said in part:

"The NRC approved the AP1000 design in 2005. Then it changed the rules and required that all new plants conform to a rule increasing the resistance to airplane impacts." Authors Note: Why we don't put plants underground is beyond my understanding. Out of sight, out of mind and very hard to destroy with airplanes, RPG's, truck bombs, stealing of nuclear materials, etc. And yes we build stuff underground all the time.

I believe Ron has hit on at least one of the main reasons we are not building more nuclear plants. The regulatory environment is becoming almost impossible to navigate. Other reasons like spent fuel management, NIMBY individuals and cost are just a few of the other factors. All of these can be solved but it appears we decided not to go down that path for about the last 30 years.

I had/have great hope for small, underground, Gen IV/V High Temperature Gas Cooled modular reactors [or molten salt Thorium], mass produced on a production line to replace the boilers on our coal plants. The reactor plant would be new but we would re-use/recycle as much of the other plant components where possible to reduce cost. This approach could solve many of our problems at one time, carbon reduction and the burn up of existing spent fuel reprocessed into new fuel with much shorter half life are just two. Of course this is just my personal fantasy.

Instead what about 70% of the American people seem to want is for us to use more renewable energy. There is nothing wrong with this strategy because in the end, maybe not my lifetime; we will all end up using some form of renewable energy. The temptation to use the free fuel from that nuclear reactor 93 million miles above our heads is just to great to ignore. Nuclear was fun while it lasted.
No image available
Comment
19 of 36
Anonymous
August 25, 2010
Bruce writes in comment #16: "The expected cost per kWh for concentrating solar is expected to be 3.5 cents by 2020."

Perhaps he would care to point to documentation of this estimate, which I find to be extremely doubtful....

Steven
Comment
20 of 36
August 25, 2010
Re: Comment 19. From NREL report "Assessment of Parabolic
Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts", Figure 8. It was prepared by Sargent and Lundy LLC Consulting Group, Oct 2003. The 3.5 c estimate was for a Power Tower CSP system.
Comment
21 of 36
August 25, 2010
"every plant is already fully amortized"

"The average cost of electricity generation from nuclear plants is just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour in the US."


Cute rod-adams--In a decade or two the solar plants (when they too are fully amortized) will be producing power for some tiny fraction of a penny per kwh (O&M related cost of solar).
No image available
Comment
22 of 36
Anonymous
August 25, 2010
Bruce: The same report predicted that solar thermal costs in 2010 would be in the 5-8 cents/kWh range whereas they are probably in the ballpark of triple that figure--which suggests that the 2020 prediction is wildly optimistic.
Steven
Comment
23 of 36
August 26, 2010
Re Frank McIntyre and Nuclear @ 2.3 cents per KWH. That is Nuclear industry propaganda based on a 10 year look back. If you take a 30 year look back you get entirely different economics. The plants have been sold and resold for pennies on the dollar. Wall St and the bond holders lost billions. Any company announcing its intention to build nuclear will get a ratings downgrade from Wall St. Forbes magazine did an in depth article in 1985 showing that Nuclear plants were a construction fiasco. To this day there is no standardized construction protocol. Areva's Finnish project is 40% over budget and two years behind schedule. The CO2 load for nuclear is in the mining and refining. Engineered (or enhanced) Geothermal is the way to go for base load. Several countries are working on co-gen at 3 to 10 megawatts. Electric off the top and district heating for thousands of houses as a secondary benefit.
Comment
24 of 36
August 26, 2010
Mr. Rod Adams makes an interesting point with his statement: "No matter how well engineered, wind turbines and solar collectors share a common disadvantage in that their output is only as reliable as the weather and cannot be controlled by human operators."

This points out the need to back up wind and solar with biomass and wastes to energy and this can actually solve a host of problems that fossil fuels and wind and solar energy connot deal with alone.

Les Blevins, CEO Advanced Alternative Energy Corp. http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
Comment
25 of 36
August 26, 2010
Lots of good cases here for carbon free Clean energy technologies. Nuclear waste is a big issue, but Nuclear power is reliable. Wind and Solar are somewhat intermittient, though distributed wind and solar combined with energy storage make them a safer alternative to Nuclear. Plus, a Gigawatt of Wind and Solar can be online within two years, instead of waiting 10~15 years for a new Nuclear power plant. In 10 years American can have 100 Giwawatt of new Wind and Solar online, compared to maybe one or two 1.6 Gigawatt Nuclear power plants.

Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro, Stationary Fuel Cell, Combined Heat and Power Biomass, and to some extend; Natural Gas, are all more viable energy sources than Coal. Take out the trash first with a combined effort to replace Coal, then power America with all other sources.

Canada's feed-in tariffs for Offshore wind are creating over 60,000 jobs within a relatively short time. More people are employeed across a wider cross section of the population with Wind and Solar, and you don't need $5~$10 Billion on the table before beginning work on Wind and Solar projects. The Department of Defense is integrating Wind and Solar into military operations, more quickly and at much lower cost than alternatives.
No image available
Comment
26 of 36
Anonymous
August 26, 2010
.... and the debate goes on. Does someone have numbers on the costs of our military efforts to protect our "fossil fuels interests" in the Middle East, on behalf of our private Oil Companies. Not to mention the enormous amount of fuel used by the military and the cost to taxpayers for that.
Comment
27 of 36
August 26, 2010
Ontario's Feed in Tariff for developing Offshore Wind resources on Lake Erie is attracting over $83 Billion in investment and generating over $253 Billion in Economic activity and 66,362 new jobs while creating manufacturing, Research and Development, Demonstration and Deployment activity. American states can create new Energy and Jobs within a short time as compared with the decades it takes for Nuclear, Gas and Oil and their drawbacks of waste and pollution.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/offshore-awakening
Comment
28 of 36
August 26, 2010
We fail to understand that the cost of fossil fuel energy is outrageous. We import a significant amount of oil from foreign countries that do not like us and the cost of that is more than just $75 a barrell. On an aggregate basis think about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drain on our balance of payments to import oil, and the problems with pollution. Alternative energy sources such as coal that supplement fossil fuel as a source of energy to drive our power plants are cheap on the surface, but they wreak havoc on our environment. Only political forces make them viable in our country. Renewable energy is much cheaper. When are people going to realize that? You don't need to be a technical or financial genius to understand that. Our sunbelt and southern states have enough sunlight to drive the power of our country. Our natural gas and oil reserves are enough to sustain us in concert with solar power to help us get away from dependence upon and adversarial activities with economies that do not have our best interests at heart. We can solve political and economic problems quite easily if we open up our eyes.
Comment
29 of 36
August 26, 2010
$400/gallon

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

"Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate."
Comment
30 of 36
August 26, 2010
Seems like the only ones who remember the troops fighting in the Middle East and our lack of Jobs and our dependence on Oil are the Troops doing the fighting. Protecting Gasoline in War Zones costs over $400/gallon because of lost lives, trucks, equipment and casualties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

A modest increase of $0.50cents/gallon tax on Gasoline to fund USA Jobs and Infrastructure is a lot easier than sacrificing an arm, leg, eye, or life as thousands of America's military men and women have and continue to do. A modest $.50 cents a gallon to put millions of Americans back to work; Rebuild and Expand USA Road, Rail, and Transportation Infrastructure (Highways, Bridges, transit, bicycle paths, buses, etc.), and Oil replacement vehicles and technologies. Put a greater emphasis on Wasting less Oil and make what Americans use go Further and Last Longer.

The benefits to the USA are tremendous and far outweigh cheap Oil to waste and pollute just because it's cheap. It's not cheap for those who have to die so others can profit and waste it.

America spends $256 Billion/year for foreign oil, plus $250 Billion/year annual trade deficit with China, resulting in sending $5 Trillion dollars overseas in 10 years for Oil and products made in China.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2010

U.S. Imports by Country of Origin:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Over a Barrel: U.S. Oil Addiction: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8113439
Comment
31 of 36
August 26, 2010
Brigadier General Steven Anderson (Ret.), Chief of Logistics in Iraq under General David Petraeus, calls for the U.S. Senate to pass a Clean Energy plan. He says, "Our troops are getting killed moving fuel we wouldn't need if our military was more efficient -- and our enemies know we're hooked on their oil. That's why breaking our addiction must not only be a military priority, but America's mission, and why the Senate needs to pass a clean energy climate plan."

www.VoteVets.org
https://secure.ga3.org/03/cleanenergyclimate

Department of Defense Feb 2010 (85) Quadrennial Defense Review Report "REFORMING HOW WE DO BUSINESS"

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/

http://www.pewclimatesecurity.org/resources/about-the-quadrennial-defense-review/

"Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.

Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows."
Comment
32 of 36
August 26, 2010
Interesting discussion thread, but I am disappointed that all comments approach the energy equation from the supply side. Why not promote reduction on the demand side? The amount of energy wastefully consumed in America is staggering. From poorly-insulated houses, to gigantic illuminated buildings and signs, to computers left on all day/every day, to millions of miles of single-person commuter driver trips, there is so much we could do to reduce energy consumption.

But conservation doesn't promote economic growth, now does it? Well then, we need to completely transform our economic paradigm.
Comment
33 of 36
August 26, 2010
Interesting discussion thread is correct John Dye; and we haven't even started discussing how INEFFICIENT our power plants are. Did you know that most power plants, coal, natural gas and nuclear WASTE 60-70% of the energy we put into them. For example a 1000 Mega Watt Electric power plant [like one of our nuke units] takes about 3000 Mega Watts of heat energy to create that electricity. Just like going to the grocery store, buying $100 worth of groceries and then throwing away $70 worth when you get home.

And we think we are the sharpest cheddar in the deli case LOL.

Tom G.
No image available
Comment
34 of 36
Anonymous
August 26, 2010
Sadly nobody talks about conserving energy.
That is almost a mute topic even though it has real and great potential in solving some of our energy problems.
If we were to seriously conserve: for instance weatherize all the homes and buildings in the US we could lower the demand on the power grid and renewables we might just be a real solution. Instead we chose to continue with this craze for more and more energy.
Reading all these comments tells me that we are obviously more willing to accept the risks of a serious accident from stored hot nuke rods, and deseases like cancers caused from breathing dirty and filthy air than changing our livestyles and paying for the energy we so madly crave. It's funny how much money we waste every day on mundane stuff we don't really need but when it comes to energy, it has to be cheap,and endless and preferably produced somewhere else at other peoples expense.
Shaking my head in amazement at the ingnorace of us human beings.
Comment
35 of 36
August 27, 2010
Re: Conserving energy, and energy efficiency. Keep in mind that this newsletter is all about Renewable Energy. That doesn't mean we are not interested in energy efficience. Conservation is definitely part of the solution. If you are familiar with Princeton's "stabilization wedges" to keep CO2 down, a significant part of the strategy is for energy conservation. Joseph Romm of Climate Progress gives his version here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/
Comment
36 of 36
August 27, 2010
Hi:

I see the fireman are still arguing over what method to use to put the fire out as the building burns down with them in it...
Little changes...
Like the man in the desert with ten dollars worth of bottled water, and the other guy with the twenty in his wallet, only then is it realized that the twenty or any amount of money, has not the real value. Only the water has the value and the ability to protect it with force.
Until it is realized that the result ITSELF is the value and not the concept of currency acquisition to determine prospective paths or goals, we will continue to burn up.
The very first hurtle (a baby step) that must be over come is that the USA public at large must stop using money as the Yes or No to RE, and only use it as a guide to the best RE choice for them. In short, WE WILL do SOLAR, WIND, etc. and I WILL implement the best value RE. But the system installed will be RE not conventional. Or to put it another way, if I can afford it, I will do it, and screw the ROI or total cost savings as a (yes/no) tool. They must simply abandon conventionals as a choice.

.....Bill
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

Ralf Sigrist

View Ralf Sigrist's Profile
About: Ralf Sigrist is President and CEO of Nordex USA, a global leader in the manufacture of utility-scale wind turbines. The company is headquartered in Chicago, Ill... more »

Advertise With Us

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. FC Business Intelligence Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Enphase Energy AEG Power Solutions Natural Power AltEnergyStocks
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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