Sun & Wind Power, Not Cheap, Not Green

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun & Wind Power, Not Cheap, Not Green
11
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 4:01pm
Sun & Wind Power, Not Cheap, Not Green

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule.

The uncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels put on quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges.

Current state and federal efforts to restructure the electricity industry are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for politically favored renewables, particularly wind and solar. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewable technologies are likely to create few environmental benefits; increase electricity-generation overcapacity in most regions of the United States; raise electricity rates; and create new "environmental pressures," given the extra land and materials (compared with those needed for traditional technologies) it would take to significantly increase the capacity of wind and solar generation.



Renee

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 12:13pm
NREL and R&D Partners Work to Trim Solar Electricity Costs

From Alaska to Nebraska and all points east, west, and south—solar energy is all around us. Our national "solar resource" is enormous, even with all its regional variations. The energy in this resource could supply us with substantial amounts of clean, renewable electricity year after year. We just need to be able to extract and harness the sun's energy at a reasonable cost.


For more than two decades, NREL scientists have been working on ways to do that. Their brand of science is called "PV," for photovoltaics. At the heart of it are semiconductor devices, or cells, which convert sunlight directly into electricity. PV cells are assembled into flat panels or "modules," which in turn are configured into arrays of virtually any size.


PV technology has advanced greatly, but it still doesn't convert as much of the energy in sunlight as we'd like. Their electrical efficiency is one often-cited reason that PV still does not yet produce power as cheaply as more established sources such as natural gas and coal. Except in remote areas where utility service isn't available or in areas where incentive to using PV are provided, the price of PV power—about 20 cents per kilowatt—generally can't compete.


But another factor—perhaps more within our grasp—is equally important. When we drive down the cost of making PV modules, the price of PV power will come down as well. That goal is what moved solar researchers at NREL, along with one key partner in private industry, to a recent breakthrough in solar equipment manufacturing.


The partner is First Solar, a privately held PV module supplier based in Ohio. NREL has worked with the firm for more than a decade; their relationship is an outgrowth of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Thin Film PV Partnership Program, which is managed at the NREL National Center for Photovoltaics. NREL and First Solar haven't focused on cost reductions per se, but rather on a promising new technology involved in the manufacture of PV modules.


The technology is known as High-Rate Vapor Transport Deposition, or HRVTD. Richard J. King, who leads PV research and development activities in DOE's Solar Energy Technology Program, last year described it as "one of the most important processing advances in photovoltaics history." He went on to write that the technology "represents a critical pathway toward truly cost-competitive electricity from solar energy." (The editors of R&D Magazine agreed, and they honored HRVTD with an R&D 100 Award.)


More....................

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 12:36pm

And your point?


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 1:56pm

Wonder how the oil business is reacting to this re-newable power source.


The Keith Companies Begins Work on Texas Wind Power Project.



The Keith Companies, Inc. (Nasdaq: TKCI - News), an engineering and consulting services firm headquartered in Orange County, California, announced that it has begun work in support of development of Phase II of the Sweetwater Wind Power project near Sweetwater, Texas. Phase II of the Sweetwater Project is a 91.5 megawatt (MW) addition to the existing 37 MW wind farm utilizing 61 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines. Planning is currently underway for the ultimate development of the 400 MW wind farm. At the completion of Phase II, approximately 128 MW of the ultimate 400 MW will be completed. Sweetwater Wind Power LLC is a joint development of DKRW, Babcock & Brown and Catamount Energy Corporation. The Keith Companies' Energy & Industrial Services group is providing Owner's Engineer Services. The Company's participation on this second of several phases of the project is expected to run through the remainder of 2004.


This is an excellent opportunity to further expand our efforts in renewable energy and asset management," said Aram Keith, Chairman and CEO of The Keith Companies. "We have additional opportunities developing in wind, solar, and woodwaste, as well as traditional energy projects, and we are encouraged by the increasing level of interest in this area."


More....................


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040512/law027_1.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 2:35pm

>"I think that they are incredible looking...and wouldn't mind looking at them as a part of my view.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 3:23pm
Hawaii has been investigating alternative fuel sources for a couple of decades. I don't know what the current situation is, I became discouraged when a county failed to pass a waste to energy program. This is where solid waste (including bagasse from sugarcane)is burnt for electricity. While there are smoke emissions, they are less than oil. Photo-votaic cells are common for heating water, but the only attempt at using the sun to generate electricity for the populace was a failure. Wind does generate a portion of the electricity in some areas. There are also investigations into geothermal, and ocean conversion (getting energy from the conversion of hot to cold water in the oceans. In my opinion the 50th state has done more to rid itself of dependence on oil than any other. We are going to have to find another source soon, or learn to live with less, because as globalization progresses the increase on demand will certainly outstrip supply.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 4:23pm
Did you read the report?

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-12-2004 - 5:55pm
Yes....what's your point?

cl-nwtreehugger


Community Leader:


Avatar for bzarzosa
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-13-2004 - 10:08am
I have to wonder if there really is a commitment to develop sustainable, envirnomentally viable sources of power. We keep hearing that these alternative sources are expensive and not economically competative.

I remember when recycled paper products were very much more expensive that non-recycled paper products. As consumer demand for these types of products rose, we saw the price drop. I can't help but wonder if there was more consumer demand for alternative energy sources, if the cost of such would also drop.

It just seems logical to me that current energy providers should be working hard and long to develop these sources so that they could one day eliminate the dependance on fossil fuels. Eventually, all the oil, gas and coal will be gone - maybe not in our generation but surely in generations to come. If you knew the well was going to run dry, wouldn't it make sense to be actively be developing another source?

This just speaks to me of the short-sightedness of major corporations. They want to make a profit today and to h*ll with what happens tomorrow.

Maybe I'm just simple, but I don't get it.

Barbara.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 05-13-2004 - 10:24am

I agree.


The sun & wind aren't going to used up.


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 05-13-2004 - 12:21pm
<>



Corporations are not humanitarian enterprises. They can't be expected to invest millions in a possible unviable endeavor. If they are successful, other companies soon rush in to take advantage of new technologies. The government is the agency that should be encouraging development of new energy sources through subsidies or direct investment in experimentation. You are right, once the emergency was past, they stopped subsidy, and even lowered the fuel requirements for autos.

Pages