Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Leading Global Investors Call the False Dichotomy Between Economy and Environment "Nonsense"

By Stephen Lacey, Climate Progress
January 18, 2012   |   6 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.

6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
January 19, 2012
Duoh ...
The basic economics of renewable energy are that, once the capital cost is covered, the input costs are minimal. This makes the run rate very low and makes future costs very predictable. This makes it a solid business proposition. The biggest factor is longevity i.e. how long can you continue to make money after the capex is recovered? At this point, we don't really need better technology, although that is surely coming, but more durable technology (i.e. 40+ years of operation).
Ecology and economy do appear to be linked. If one looks at the US by region, there is an obvious trend: those regions which use the least electricity per capita have the highest GDP per capita. This is quite pronounced when using US census divisions and even more pronounced when looking at ISO regions, although this is omits ~27% of the population. What the data shows is that high industrial energy use is synonymous with low GDP and, for reasons not quite clear, high residential energy use. Per ISO, this ranges from 2,724 kWh/p to 1,397 kWh/p relative to $44,907 GDP/p versus $59,681: use half as much energy, earn 1/3 more. Apropos this discussion, the best performing regions also have the greatest proportion of renewable energy and the greatest proportion of electrified transportation.
Comment
2 of 6
January 19, 2012
Futura Solar was founded and Futura's Sawtooth Daylighter was intended to operate in the both 'category."

The tidy little divisions are the product of budgeting and are no more than artifacts of our inertia.

Even within the 'solar' community these artifical divisions exist as a result of product lines. PV/Thermal is just where we start to erase those lines. BIPV is another example.

Futura Solar believes that multiple solar benefits are the ultimate goal and that incorporating the array into the roof makes the most sense. Multiple benefits bring the most utility into the building at the lowest cost. Building the array into the roof observes the maxim that the least expensive way to do anything is to get it right the first time.
Comment
3 of 6
January 19, 2012
Steven - if it is NOT environmentally sound is is NOT economic...period
Comment
4 of 6
January 20, 2012
peterlynch is of course correct when one views the problem using theory of constraints.
Locally we have an ongoing sauga of otherwise prime realestate that has negative value due to industrial pollution from previous owners or nearby property. More often than not, the taxpayer ends up paying for remediation. In several cases, the result has been jobs and industry simply going elsewhere to escape; double negative for the local economy: cost of remediation plus lost revenue. There is a case that a substantial portion of medical costs is the result of acts of man not acts of God. For instance, the costs of treating asthma are primarily the result of air pollution. I wonder if anyone has ever tallied the cummulative cost of the use of lead in manufactured goods. According to a Mt Sinai 2008 study, treating lead poisoning in children still costs $50B per year.
No image available
Comment
5 of 6
Anonymous
January 20, 2012
While Mr. Vachon's proposition that innovation is the way to achieve both economic and environmental goals is true in theory, it also ignores reality. The history of aggressive government regulatory efforts aimed at arbitrary environmental goals is littered with failure. The only environmental policies that have been successful long term are those that make sense in free market economic terms.

Regulations that require a very small, incremental change each year, for many years, are effective. Regulations that demand large changes over a short period are not effective. The best example of this is automotive emissions regulations. Auto engines have gotten marginally cleaner each year for the past 30 years, to the point where their emissions are now almost zero for some compounds. And this gradual evolution (instead of a revolution) has not resulted in an unacceptable cost burden to auto buyers. Contrary to the protests of automakers, the gradual cost increase of these emissions regulations have been negligible. And contrary to the wailing of environmentalists, the world has not come to an end with a sensible timetable.

Mr. Vachon touts the environmental "investments" made by GE. Of course he also fails to mention that much of the source of that investment capital was US taxpayers. In FY2011, GE lost over $40 million in its wind energy business. But it more than made up for those losses in its "dirty" turbine engine business.

It's frustrating to hear the typical one-sided attacks on the oil, coal, and gas producers. These companies pay billions in taxes and royalties each year, in fact they contribute far more tax revenues than any other industry. Most of you also fail to appreciate just how much access to low cost, plentiful energy sources (like coal, oil and natural gas) has improved the average person's quality of life. Think about this: Every single part of a wind turbine or PV solar cell is manufactured using coal, oil or natural gas energy.
Comment
6 of 6
January 25, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/new-federal-data-show-power-plants-are-biggest-source-of-the-gases-blamed-for-global-warming/2012/01/11/gIQApCpArP_story.html

From: dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com

Dennis Baker
penticton bc canada V2A1P9
250-462-3796

dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com



How do we get there from here?

Think globally, and this is a global idea.
7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement.
I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis

Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered.


reference info

Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ...
DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&...

Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities
the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions.
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

Advertise With Us

FC Business Intelligence 2GreenEnergy.com Ingeteam Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. SunMaxx Solar Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Canadian Solar Inc.
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