3 ms·

- Globally wind power produced < 0.5% of energy last year. Most people forget, or don't realise, that the current obsession with alternative energy is limited

by brc 14y ago

- Globally wind power produced < 0.5% of energy last year. Most people forget, or don't realise, that the current obsession with alternative energy is limited to parts of Western Europe and parts of the USA. It has virtually no traction elsewhere in the world. - You're right, I should have written billions instead of trillions, though I'd be surprised if it hasn't reached a trillion by now. It's still an insane amount of money. - Bankruptcies in Germany and Spain by solar companies are very much the cause of bad policies - by pumping up a sector with unsustainable subsidies, then being forced to remove subsidies precisely because they are unsustainable. This creates a bubble into which resources rush, which then bursts and creates a lot of problems. This is the fundamental problem, of trying to coerce a particular set of technologies into place when they aren't suitable for it. The correct response is to admit there is no current technical solution to affordable energy without burning stuff. There is a noisy subset of people who don't agree with this position, and that's fair enough. History has always proven that major advances come from unexpected areas, and tend to render prior technologies obselete almost overnight.

ktizo 14y ago
There are many available technical solutions, is just that the majority aren't as cheap as burning oil or gas yet, at least for most situations.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not just that. It's also that the majority aren't as heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly, as burning coal or oil. In the U.S. more than half our electricity comes from coal. When the enormous external costs of coal mining and burning are factored in (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-cooper/harvard-study-coal-costs-_b_831755.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-cooper/harvard-study-coal...) the per-kilowatt hour cost of coal should be more than double the artificially low cost we see today. And in certain parts of the country (particularly the midwest), wind power is already within a factor of two in price.
ghouse 14y ago
These comments are not necessary exclusive. Parent said electricity while brc indicates globally wind power produced < 0.% of <energy>. Of course, no thermal plant has been built in the US in the past 50 years without some subsidies -- both direct and indirect. So, it's a bit of a red-herring argument.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The "no subsidies" bit is really a massive red-herring. Even without taxes, fossil fuels are hugely subsidized. The lack of effective legal frameworks to prevent e.g. coal plants from shifting the inherent costs of coal power onto people in surrounding neighborhoods is an implicit subsidy. Letting them shift $100 of environmental damage onto the residents of West Virginia is exactly the same as giving them a $100 check.
rayiner 14y ago
> Globally wind power produced < 0.5% of energy last year. Most people forget, or don't realise, that the current obsession with alternative energy is limited to parts of Western Europe and parts of the USA. It has virtually no traction elsewhere in the world. Who cares about places that aren't Western Europe or the USA? Those places are technology followers. 15 years ago, the internet was only a statistically significant phenomenon in Western Europe and the USA. Yet other countries are now reaping the benefits of that technology. So to will be the case with energy technology. > - Bankruptcies in Germany and Spain by solar companies are very much the cause of bad policies This argument is non-sensical. STD's and babies are both caused by sex, that doesn't mean that STD's are the fault of babies. > The correct response is to admit there is no current technical solution to affordable energy without burning stuff. "Affordable" is a very relative term, especially when you look at true costs, including externalities, rather than just observed costs. Where I live (Illinois) wind power is approaching a factor of two of our average electricity price. Is that affordable? Almost certainly.
Someone 14y ago
"the current obsession with alternative energy is limited to parts of Western Europe and parts of the USA. It has virtually no traction elsewhere in the world" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People%27s_Re... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India "The correct response is to admit there is no current technical solution to affordable energy without burning stuff" And, from there, the correct conclusion must be that we should continue burning stuff at ever faster rates? IMO, we should start using renewable sources ASAP, start using less energy, and work on energy-efficient ways to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases released (IMO, building factories to pump CO2 into the ground is not the best solution here)

by brc 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago

There are many available technical solutions, is just that the majority aren't as cheap as burning oil or gas yet, at least for most situations.

rayiner 14y ago
It's not just that. It's also that the majority aren't as heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly, as burning coal or oil. In the U.S. more than half our electricity comes from coal. When the enormous external costs of coal mining and burning are factored in (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-cooper/harvard-study-coal-costs-_b_831755.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-cooper/harvard-study-coal...) the per-kilowatt hour cost of coal should be more than double the artificially low cost we see today. And in certain parts of the country (particularly the midwest), wind power is already within a factor of two in price.

ghouse 14y ago

These comments are not necessary exclusive. Parent said electricity while brc indicates globally wind power produced < 0.% of <energy>. Of course, no thermal plant has been built in the US in the past 50 years without some subsidies -- both direct and indirect. So, it's a bit of a red-herring argument.

rayiner 14y ago
The "no subsidies" bit is really a massive red-herring. Even without taxes, fossil fuels are hugely subsidized. The lack of effective legal frameworks to prevent e.g. coal plants from shifting the inherent costs of coal power onto people in surrounding neighborhoods is an implicit subsidy. Letting them shift $100 of environmental damage onto the residents of West Virginia is exactly the same as giving them a $100 check.

rayiner 14y ago

> Globally wind power produced < 0.5% of energy last year. Most people forget, or don't realise, that the current obsession with alternative energy is limited to parts of Western Europe and parts of the USA. It has virtually no traction elsewhere in the world. Who cares about places that aren't Western Europe or the USA? Those places are technology followers. 15 years ago, the internet was only a statistically significant phenomenon in Western Europe and the USA. Yet other countries are now reaping the benefits of that technology. So to will be the case with energy technology. > - Bankruptcies in Germany and Spain by solar companies are very much the cause of bad policies This argument is non-sensical. STD's and babies are both caused by sex, that doesn't mean that STD's are the fault of babies. > The correct response is to admit there is no current technical solution to affordable energy without burning stuff. "Affordable" is a very relative term, especially when you look at true costs, including externalities, rather than just observed costs. Where I live (Illinois) wind power is approaching a factor of two of our average electricity price. Is that affordable? Almost certainly.

Someone 14y ago

"the current obsession with alternative energy is limited to parts of Western Europe and parts of the USA. It has virtually no traction elsewhere in the world" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People%27s_Re... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India "The correct response is to admit there is no current technical solution to affordable energy without burning stuff" And, from there, the correct conclusion must be that we should continue burning stuff at ever faster rates? IMO, we should start using renewable sources ASAP, start using less energy, and work on energy-efficient ways to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases released (IMO, building factories to pump CO2 into the ground is not the best solution here)