Despite the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is caused by man-made emissions — and a strong majority of Americans agree — the GOP is still deep in denial. Why? Probably because their corporate benefactors tell them to be.
But ironically, it may not matter. Because while the cost of fossil fuels — the main cause of greenhouse gases that cause climate change — continues to go up, the cost of renewable energy is plummeting. For example, the cost of solar panels has dropped 99% since 1977, and has accelerated (over 60% of that drop has occurred in the last 3 years).
Even just considering the individual market, solar is a good investment. A homeowner purchasing a solar power system for their own home now sees a return on investment (savings in energy costs versus the total installation price of the system) in all but one state. In fact, in 86% of states, the ROI is better than you would get from a 5-year CD (Certificate of Deposit). In 67%, the ROI of solar is better than 30-year treasure bonds. And in 25% of states (today, and the number is growing), the ROI is better than the S&P 500 stock index. Here’s a link to a chart showing the ROI for each state.
That’s right, millions of people can make more money by installing solar than by investing in the stock market. In Hawaii, the average savings by installing solar is above $60,000. And in 3 out of the 4 most populated states, the average savings is above $30,000.
Not only that, but there are important added benefits. Installing solar means you are reducing pollution, including greenhouse gases (and thus climate change). It also helps our country become more energy independent, and so less reliant on oil coming from foreign countries (cough, Middle East). How much money and lives would we save by avoiding just one war for oil? Not only is solar energy local energy, it creates local jobs and so doubly helps our economy.
And if our government would stop subsidizing big oil the numbers would look even better for renewable energy.
All of this doesn’t take into account the fact that carbon pollution is the greatest unpriced externality in history. If fossil fuels had to pay for the damage they are doing to our economy, they would be even more expensive.
I say, let the free market work. Eliminate subsidies for oil and coal. Sure energy prices would rise, but then they would go back down as renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal etc.) becomes more popular. We’d not only be doing the earth and ourselves a big favor, we’d be making money. Lots of it.
14 Comments
I believe climate change is happening. And while exactly how much comes from man made sources and the exact impact on the climate as a measurement is debatable we do need to address it. However after weighing the facts and seeing the documentary Pandoras Promise I really believe we need to rethink our solution. I don’t think solar and wind will ever be the whole answer or even a significant player in the solution. Nuclear power creates 0 greenhouse gasses, just like wind and solar, but square miles full of solar farms or wind farms can’t even come close to 1 nuclear reactor. Solar and wind will never be able to replace our energy needs, not with current technology.
Look over this site, throw away your current ideology and think with an open mind. Nuclear is even renewable with newer 5th generation reactors able to use the spent fuel from older reactors.
http://pandoraspromise.com/category/news
Texas is one of the biggest producers of green house gases because of the cattle for beef. Now if cows are raising that much heat, humans must also.
You made no mention of the bald eagle being killed by windmills and Obama approving the kill.
PSgt, solar already is a significant player. I’m not talking about square miles of solar farms, I’m talking about people putting solar panels on their own homes. Talk about throwing away your current ideology and thinking with an open mind — power does not have to come from centralized power plants, it can be localized. Already, 10% of the energy in Texas is produced by solar.
And I would be more than happy to support nuclear energy if they would start moving away from Uranium and Plutonium and building (much safer) Thorium reactors. Unfortunately, Thorium reactors can’t be used build nuclear weapons, so we don’t seem to be interested.
IK, Solar and wind will never replace the energy needs of today and tomorrow. Energy production will need to nearly triple in the next 30-40 years. Carbon based sources currently account for almost 80% of current energy usage. Yes they can replace here and there, but when an iphone uses the same amount of energy as a refrigerator if you count the network behind it and the fact we are increasing our consumption as we ride into the digital future then solar and wind can never make a difference. IMO you need to rethink your opposition to nuclear. The other benefit we need to consider is bringing the 3rd world out of poverty. Expensive local based solar/wind and the impact they have on the environment is not going to cut it in an impoverished nation that can barely feed it’s people. Getting them cheap power so they can have a light to do homework or a refrigerator to keep food or AC in a schoolhouse will do more to propel them up from poverty. I think you need to open your mind and take a more realistic look at the scale of the problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-stone/pandoras-promise-documentary_b_2507213.html
Sadly, Patriotsgt is correct. The amount of room required for them compared to what they put out compared to what we will need going forward just doesnt add up. Solar can be a force in the future when we are able to put massive shields out in space and send the energy back to Earth, but unfortunately that is a long long way off. I’m liking hydrogen
PSgt, I don’t need to “rethink my opposition to nuclear” because I am not opposed to nuclear. I like nuclear. I will admit that I have a slight mistrust of the nuclear industry itself (but not of nuclear energy itself), because they have a (well earned) reputation of bad behavior and mistakes.
Nothing in my original post (or anything else I’ve posted on this blog) is anti nuclear power. And I just said I would happily be promoting nuclear energy if the nuclear industry would consider things like Thorium. Why won’t they even consider it? Do they not have an open mind?
But in your last post you just repeat yourself, and then you throw in a statement like “Expensive local based solar/wind and the impact they have on the environment…” but don’t present evidence of this. Did you even read my original post? Solar is NOW at the point where almost everywhere
PSgt, I don’t need to “rethink my opposition to nuclear” because I am not opposed to nuclear. I like nuclear. I will admit that I have a slight mistrust of the nuclear industry itself (but not of nuclear energy itself), because they have a (well earned) reputation of bad behavior and mistakes.
Nothing in my original post (or anything else I’ve posted on this blog) is anti nuclear power. And I just said I would happily be promoting nuclear energy if the nuclear industry would consider things like Thorium. Why won’t they even consider it? Do they not have an open mind? And I’ve posted in the past promoting Thorium, which means that I have already promoted nuclear energy. So please don’t accuse me of opposing nuclear.
But in your last post you just repeat yourself, and then you throw in a statement like “Expensive local based solar/wind and the impact they have on the environment…” but don’t present evidence of this. Did you even read my original post? Solar is NOW at the point where almost everywhere it is cheaper than our current energy sources (including nuclear and subsidized oil and coal — the places where it is about the same cost are places like where I live in Oregon, where we have abundant hydro power). And it is getting even less expensive quickly. Is it you who need to open your mind?
Yes, people have a bad opinion of nuclear energy, and that documentary makes the point that most of that bad opinion is based on old technology and outdated facts. But my post points out the same thing — people have a bad opinion of solar power because they think solar power is too expensive and won’t scale, when the reality has changed dramatically. Even the director of that documentary says we need to push renewable energy.
It does not have to be either/or.
Agreed on the either/or point IK and I meant to imply that. Anytime we can remove a house or mall business from the grid using renewable energy is great or even reduce the reliance on the grid. In the US we can maybe get up to the 25% number in the next ten years of renewables. But the rest of the developing world uses fossil fuels. They’ll overtake us as the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses. We need to solve this problem globally, especially in the far east, Africa and South America. As those areas increase their demand for power to our level we’d have to blanket any remaining land with solar/wind.
I also believe your fear of nuclear energy is unwarranted. There has not been a single death from nuclear power in the US. I don’t even know of a single nuclear accident, save 3 mile island in the 70’s. And I know of no ecological disasters either. Yes in other countries there was Chernobyl and Fukishima. People moved back into Chernobyl a few years after the accident and there are no higher levels of radiation then in Boston or Rio. There is no higher rate of cancer after 25 years then anywhere else in he world. So what’s the problem with nuclear? Yes Solar works well in places like Texas or the southwest but what about Maine or New England or Seattle. Wind works well on the sea coasts, but would fail in the plains or take up all our available farm land. We don’t have the technology to store excess electricity created from them yet so in the northern hemisphere in winter what do we use?
Solar and Wind has it’s place, but that place is not as a replacement to fossil fuels.
I admit to knowing little about this subject but I do have some questions for those of you who do.
On the wind turbines, is there a reason the blades can’t be caged to keep birds out?
And aren’t there vast desert areas where the wind farms could be placed?
And to losing farm land to wind power, can’t the land around the turbines be farmed, particularly if they were placed in grids with open space between the rows?
I live in the St. Louis area and I’m not sure our local city government will allow solar. I do remember reading that the town next to us is being sued for not allowing solar panels on a house. Or maybe it was the homeowners association. I think more needs to be to attempt to educate all of us on the subject. I would also like to see more homeowner tax subsidies made available.
Wildwood, there are some new micro-turbines that aren’t just propellers on posts and are safe for wildlife.
But the real solution to renewables comes with what’s referred to as “DG” — small-scale distributed generation, like solar roofs on houses, or single turbines on houses or utility poles.
And we should not be omitting the various forms of tidal generation from this discussion — that is such a dependable source, it makes everything else look spastic. And since a ridiculous percentage of us — I think it’s near to 90% — live within 100 miles of a coastline, tidal is even geographically simple.
Wow — SGT and IK, I have one word for you: Fukushima. When the day comes that we know what to do with nuclear waste, and can make a reactor that’s actually safe, that’s the time to start discussing nuclear power generation as a solution. Until then — try abandoning the notion that all power has to be generated in huge quantities at one dedicated location.
Hence the comments about Thorium reactors, Westomoon.
What I read about killing the Eagles was that Eagle fly with their heads down looking for prey. I thought cages would be the answer also until I realized the impact with the cage could kill the Eagle.
I’ve heard some very large percentage of households who use solar. Mine is little from Harbor freight. I keep my cell phone charged, weather channel radio, and lights all over my house, speakers on the computer. Something about seeing those lights on, knowing it is free that is very satisfying.
One point I feel obligated to make is that I for one, AM against nuclear power and this is why. If you took all the poisons created in a coal burning plant in a year and stuffed them all into a refrigerator, that is what you get with a nuclear plant. Yes, you don’t get a lot of bad stuff, but the bad stuff you get in a gazillion times more potent. If we’ve learned anything over human history, it is that anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong over time, and just because one of these time bombs hasn’t gone off is no argument that it never will. There has never been a death in America due to nuclear power is hollow argument in Pripyat or norther Japan. Blame that on American Exceptionalism, meaning of course, that our days are numbered,
I realize I’m beating a dead horse here, but, yeah, Westomoon and IL-08, you really need to look into Thorium reactors. Regarding Fukushima, “Kirk Sorensen notes that because LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure, hydrogen explosions as happened in Fukushima, Japan in 2011, are not possible.” Regarding waste, “There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less [than uranium],” and “The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.” In comparison with coal, “one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 3,500,000 tons of coal.”
I have mixed feelings about a lot of our energy options. For solar and wind, storage is problematic from an environmental perspective. These technologies use a lot of rare earth metals, some of which have very disastrous extraction procedures. With nuclear, my concerns are more about the industry than the technology itself (again, see Thorium). Natural gas is nice in regard to the amount of carbon released, but it has its own problems (fracking and release of a lot of nitrogen instead of carbon, which may end up being just as bad in the long run). Ethanol isn’t a great alternative to gasoline, as it produces significantly less energy and it’s, well, burning food that could be used to actually feed people. The only one that I’m not torn on is coal. Coal is just nasty and very polluting.
Long story short, I think we need significant public investment into a variety of options. The research must be done from sources that are not tied to industry, so as to provide more objective results.