In a previous post
we pointed out that alternative energies (solar, wind, ethanol
and other biofuels) bump up against implacable physical realities
which no amount of government spending or research can overcome, and
which are environmentally destructive despite propaganda to the
contrary. Ethanol in gasoline, for example, according to EPA's own
data, increases key pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and
nitrogen oxide by as much as 7 percent. Yet it was on the basis of
phony scientific claims that ethanol would reduce pollution from
automobile emissions that it use was mandated by the government.
Biofuels have a power
density of only 0.3 watts per square meter, and modern solar voltaic
panels about 6 watts per square meter. An average oil well producing
10 barrels per day is at 27 watts per square meter, and an average
nuclear plant more than 50 watts per square meter. Biofuels used 247
million acres of land—that's more than twice the size of
California—to produce less than one-half of one percent of the
world's energy, according to Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the
Manhattan Institute, in 2014.
Now I have come across a
book that really drives home how impractical it is to talk about
replacing fossil fuels, which comprise 87 percent of the world's
energy, with any meaningful amount of these alternative sources. The
book is Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the
Future of Environmentalism. Significantly,
it is not from the fossil fuels industry or based on its data or
research. Rather, author Ozzie Zehner assembles his case “from
government offices, environmentalists, and scientists promoting solar
photo-voltaics.” References for the quotations below can be found
in the abundant footnotes in his book.
Zehner calculates what it would cost to
replace the world's use of fossil fuels with solar power using
today's technology. He writes:
By comparing
global energy consumption with the most rosy photo-voltaic cost
estimates, courtesy of the solar proponents themselves, [emphasis
added] we can roughly sketch a total expense. The solar cells would
cost about $59 trillion; the mining, processing and manufacturing
facilities to build them would cost about $44 trillion; and the
batteries to store power for evening use would cost $20 trillion;
bringing the total to about $123 trillion plus about $694 billion
per year for maintenance.
For comparison, GDP (gross domestic
product) of the entire world is now $74 trillion, and U.S. GDP is $17
trillion. This includes all food, rent, industrial investments,
government expenditures, military purchases, exports, etc. “This
means,” writes Zehner,
that if every American were to go without food, shelter, protection,
and everything else while working hard every day naked, we just might
be able to build a photo-voltaic array to power the planet in about a
decade. But, unfortunately, these estimations are optimistic.
If actual
installed costs for solar projects in California are any guide, a
global solar program would cost roughly $1.4 quadrillion....Mining,
smelting, processing, shipping and fabricating and their associated
hardware would yield about 149,100 megatons of carbon dioxide. And
everyone would have to move to the desert; otherwise transmission
losses would make the plan unworkable.
The cost of solar cells has dropped
markedly, but Zehner says the panels
account for less that half the cost of an installed solar system,
according to the industry. Based on research by solar energy
proponents and data from the California Energy Commission ...cheaper
voltaics won't offset escalating expenditures for insurance, warranty
expenses, materials, transportation, labor and other requirements.
Low-tech costs are claiming a larger share of the high-tech solar
system price tag.
Finally,
unforeseen limitations are blind-siding the solar industry as it
grows. Fire departments restrict solar roof installations, and
homeowner associations complain about the ugly arrays. Adding to the
burden, solar arrays now often require elaborate alarm systems and
locking fasteners; without such protection, thieves regularly steal
the valuable panels...For instance, California resident Glenda
Hoffman woke up one morning to discover thieves stole sixteen solar
panels from her roof as she slept. [Replacement cost $95,000, was
paid by insurance.]
There is no reason to believe a smaller
program or a graduated one would be any more workable than worldwide
replacement of fossil fuels. The losses would be smaller but would
still be outweighed by costs in proportion. The only “benefit”
of a smaller scale might be to make it easier to hide the costs in a
labyrinth of subsidies and budgetary gimmicks and push the cost onto
future generations by adding it to the national debt.
It is worth noting, too, that the
losses are not limited to the direct cost of the inefficiencies of
solar energy. The financial increment consumed by overpaying for
energy results in that increment being spent less optimally, too.
For example, the argument is made that the solar industry creates
jobs; however, those jobs will be in areas such as producing more
solar panels for an artificially created demand for an uneconomic
product, rather than for the needs of consumers which would be better
met by jobs in other fields.
It also means that consumers who are
forced to overpay for energy have less money available for other
purchases.
No comments:
Post a Comment