Is The Notion Of Alternative Energy Being Economically Viable Wishing Thinking?
Posted by Paul Martin · 13 Comments
Skeptics have always maintained that if alternative energy was viable in a free market economy, they would already be in use. Proponents of global warming have always criticized skeptics as being stupid, uniformed and uneducated for maintaining this position and that alternative energy was indeed viable.
It turns out shell oil has backed out of the alternative energy investments saying it is economically a poor investment.
“Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today… The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said: “If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/…
Alternative energy is available now, however it’s the believers that are stopping this technology from being put into place.
Nuclear Power can provide the US with almost all our power needs. However environmentalists are scared about transporting waste, even though the waste is very small and transported every day.
Another excuse is the cost which is only higher because environmnetalists sue Nuclear power plants to prevent them from operating causing prices to rise. Truthfully, they are just scared of modern technology they don’t understand.
By switching to nuclear, we could reduce the green house gas output of the US by 50%.
If you took all the money actually spent on oil production and supply, you’d see a different story.
If Shell were forced to completely pay for the extraction, processing and transporting of their oil (including protection), the price of oil would more than skyrocket. It would be unaffordable for nearly everyone. Since the government subsidizes a good portion of this process I am sure it does make more sense for Shell to continue down the path of oil.
Nope.
First off, if we had to pay the true cost of energy from fossil fuels, they would not be so cheap. Once a carbon tax or cap and trade system is put in place, the economic costs of fossil fuels will more accurately reflect their true costs, and renewables will be even more competetive than they already are.
Secondly, there are already renewable options which are cost-competetive with fossil fuels.http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/08/is…
Shell has made a short-sighted and self-destructive decision here. It’s their loss.http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/18/sh…
Dana “true cost”?
Translation: that amount socialist can steal from the useful idiots willing to pay the carbon taxes that are based on flawed and exaggerated science.
It isn’t science, it is socialism and carbon taxes were the ultimate goal. It will fail of course as socialism always does. Let’s just hope we get some people running this country who actually understand basic economics, besides that taught by Marx, before they destroy this great country.
Can it be done?…yes it can. Will it be be done?…only as a last ditch effort. Twenty five years ago I tried promoting passive systems, nothing has changed. That includes government incentives for active or passive alternative energy sources. Once you see local and national government promotions of alternative energy, something may happen. Tonnage, dollars, and KW’s, fossil fuels still has the upper hand. To date, it’s nothing other then wishful thinking.
Alternative energy is a joke . We need about 18 million barrels a day.If U add all the alternative fuel together it will not produce 1 million barrels a day.
I agree with Dr.Jello– nuclear power is the answer– “right now”. All the waste from all the reactors operating in the USA since the 1950s could fit on ONE football field! Figuring out how to dispose of this small amount is a social problem ———– not a technical problem.
Lawsuits by environmentalist extends the construction by DECADES! and the raises the COST of construction significantly.
Just wait — as soon as someone suggests building 17,000 windmills on the great plains– the Sierra Club — Greenpiece, and others will suddenly discover 14 different endangered species right where the windmills will be. This has been their tactic for years now. Like this–http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/nucle…
EDIT– Dana — “true cost” you actually mean manipulated COST due to unwarranted government tax schemes!
Companies tend to look at the short term, and governments often do the same. Alternative energy looked like a good investment when oil was at $140/barrel, and seems less so now that it’s below $50. But all new technologies start out with handicaps. Electricity was an interesting but useless novelty until the country installed an enormous grid to carry the power everywhere it was needed. The US invested many billions in bringing nuclear power into everyday use, which never would have happened if left up to private investment. The reality is that oil will become more scarce and will contiue to pison the planet. Coal and natural gas are cheaper, but have the same disastrous environmental effects. When we consider the costs of preparing for and responding to global warming, trillions of dollars for seawalls, relocating coastal populations, lost fisheries and farmland, etc, the investment in alternatives makes more sense. But a corporation looking at short-term profits isn’t likely to make the investment needed. This is why at this stage we need to rely on government initiatives.
Well, that’s no surprise to me! Shell has been blowin smoke for some time now. Did you see their tv ads? They were going to change the world! I never beleived it for a second – wouldn’t it have been nice to see a company that has taken so much from our environment and health take the high road and reinvest in the betterment of our society? So yeah, I guess it is a dream to think a taker company like Exxon would pick up this ball and run with it.
I guess we’ll have to do it without them. They know that oil will always be used and produced to the last drop – doesn’t mean alternative energies are not viable. Though they ARE new to the market so it’s going to take time….remember when a CD player cost $500.00? Now you can get one for as little as $10.00. The alternative fuel market is still there and as long as people don’t just give up like Exxon did then the technology will continue to develope and will eventually be very viable. We are humans, not monkees – we CAN figure this out if we don’t give up! Move over Exxon!!
Jello, it’s not the transport of nuclear waste that I worry as much about as it is the storage – can we put it in your backyard? What? You don’t want toxic chems stored near your water supply? Come on – I thought you said it was safe? And if you’re treansporting it EVERY day then how “small” is it really? Not at all.
Ok, Boatman, we’ll put that football feild of toxic waste in your backyard then. Problem solved?
The only way that the Warmers have to make solar, wind… etc. viable is to utilize smoke and mirror techniques such as Cap & Trade or other taxes/penalties on existing power sources (Oil/Coal/Gas). By taxing/penalizing Oil, Coal & Gas, those sources are forced to increase their prices to cover the increased taxes on their production and processing. The higher their prices go, the better deal that alternative fuels appear to be.
Even with the sinful subsidies given to alternative energies, they cannot compete with carbon-based fuel.
The losers in the end will be you and I (taxpayers/consumers), as we will be paying more to continue subsidizing alt fuels and for the dramatically higher prices that we will pay for goods and services due to higher energy prices.
Supporters of alternative fuels seem to not realize this.
If Big Industry had given as much attention to its alternatives as it did to its main sources of energy which were known to be finite, the argument would be moot. All technologies are cumbersome and costly in their early days – the first automobiles ran on petrol that sold for $5 a gallon, meaning that motorized vehicles were a toy of the wealthy. Now almost anyone can have one (check out the Nano: the manufacturers want it to sell for something like $1000 MSRP), and fuel is much cheaper than it was, especially considering the effects of inflation. See also previous poster’s mention of the unwieldly curiosity called ‘electricity’ and the infamous words re: computers in the home (”Nobody is going to want one of these”).
Japanese scientists are right now working on the base technology to allow solar arrays in geosynchronous orbits to transfer energy they collect to earth. They are well aware of the costs involved, but maintain that if it’s ever going to work they need to do the research and create the necessary materials (mmmm, carbon nano-tubules). By this reasoning they are able to receive funding.
It’s only wishful thinking for as long as we wish without doing.
Although alternative energy is here in various forms, it’s still too new to be of much use to us. In it’s current forms it is of little value when considering affordable energy that can fill all or most of our total needs.
We’ve shown that wind and solar power do work and even help now to provide energy in certain places but, overall they remain too expensive and unreliable to make large scale applications viable. Maybe someday that will change and we can lessen our dependence on oil, but til then it’s a pipe dream. We do know that the expense of even the smallest projects makes it unlikely using today’s technology.
The market doesn’t seem to like that move.
While Vestas (wind power) is up about 5%,http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VWS.CO&.yfi…
Royal Dutch Shell is down 1.3%http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VWS.CO&.yfi…
It reminds of when oil prices were very low in the 90’s and U.S. auto companies reacted by producing more and more gas guzzlers. Toyota had the foresight to keep up the energy efficiency of their fleet and produce a successful hybrid. Where is GM now?
If you want to see a real economic analysis, take a look at the levelized cost comparison between wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear:http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo0…
This analysis was from 2006. Commodity prices today change the numbers to a degree. Coal is cheaper than a year ago, but so is steel (affects wind power capital costs) but the comparison I would be is still fairly accurate.