One of the most important energy matters to accurately understand, is the reality that popular “renewable” electrical energy sources are not even remotely equivalent to our conventional energy sources.
Of course lobbyists don’t want consumers and politicians to think about that fact, so they go to great lengths to disguise it. Everything they propagate is based on an “equivalency” between “renewables” and conventional power sources that does not exist in the real world.
Even generally objective sources like EIA seriously err when they show such things as levelized cost charts that have wind energy and nuclear power in contiguous columns.
The first problem encountered here is the term “renewables.” This is bantered about like it is: 1) a scientific definition, and 2) a homogeneous group of energy sources. This is lobbyist sleight of hand, as neither is true. It isn’t my purpose here to go into the details of this charade but suffice it to say that the definition is very subjective, AND there are extraordinary differences between various “renewables.” (See Renewable Energy R.I.P. and Is Nuclear Power A Renewable?.)
After you’ve grasped those details, the heavy lifting begins. The trick here is to get our heads around the fundamental difference between something like wind energy and nuclear power.
I’m just a physicist and not a professional communicator, so wordology doesn’t come natural to me. However, what I have learned is that most people have a better chance of understanding complex matters when an analogy is used. Let’s try that here.
My suggested comparison is to look at two types of transportation (a parallel energy sector), using concepts we are all familiar with.
Let’s say that we have a business that repeatedly needs to get 50,000 pounds of goods from New York City to Denver, in two days, and cost is quite important. [In the electricity business this translates to satisfying a demand (load), through dispatchable energy, reliably and economically.]
So who do we subcontract this job to? A good option is to put this merchandise on an 18-wheeler and send it on its way. Will it always get there 100% of the time without fail? No, flukes do happen. However, if this experiment was repeated 100 times, the truck would arrive well over 90% of the time, on schedule and within budget. This is equivalent to using a conventional energy source, like nuclear power.
Now let’s say greenologists are introduced into the equation, and they arbitrarily add a new requirement that no fossil fuel can be used in the transportation. Oops. Our options are now severely restricted.
The parallel choice to using wind energy is to send the merchandise with golf carts (battery powered so no fossil fuel will be consumed during transport).
The fundamental question is:
how many golf carts will it take to dependably replicate the performance of one Mack truck?
Let’s say a golf cart can carry 500 pounds (two golfers with sticks). To transport 50,000 pounds that would work out to 100 golf carts.
This is essentially the message that the lobbyists want you to buy: that approximately 100 golf carts (wind turbines) will do the job of one 18-wheeler (conventional source: e.g. a coal facility). They want you to blink, shrug, and move on. Do NOT look behind the curtain!
But wait! Can the golf carts get really there in two days? Of course not. The lobbyists answer is to add more vehicles: use 1000 carts!
Does this “solution” really solve anything? No, but it further confuses politicians not used to critical thinking. What it also does is to insure more profit for the cart industry — which is the ONLY concern of the lobbyists.
What if the load is a hundred 500 pound pianos? Even though (on paper) a golf cart can carry 500 pounds, can a golf cart transport a piano across country? The lobbyists’ clever answer: disassemble it. (Yes they are slick.)
And will the cost of the golf cart option be comparable to the truck choice? Just to begin with there are 100+ drivers vs one — so I think you know the answer, right?
And what else will be needed to support this ”alternative” source of transportation? A lot: like battery recharge stations throughout the country. And who will pay for that? Duh.
And what is the source of the electricity used to charge the cart batteries? Mostly fossil fuels. Oops.
After the business says a resounding no to the golf cart option, the promoters come back with another appeal: just send part of the load with them. Try as they might, the owners couldn’t come up with a plan that sending ANY part of their merchandise made sense from reliability, economic or environmental perspectives. Can you?
In the face of this evidence, the lobbyists and their academic coconspirators distractingly wave their hands and spout such non-sequitors as “Don’t worry about the details. Give us a huge subsidy and we’ll do a great job. Everything will make more sense mañana.”
This isn’t how science works!
BEFORE we hire them for this assignment, these promoters should tell us exactly how many golf carts it will take, and then PROVE IT by actually running this route dozens of times. We would then have real-world evidence about the reliability, cost and environmental impact of their proposal. This is exactly what has NOT done with wind energy.
They have not only skipped right over the proof stage, right now the golf cart lobbyists are working on convincing our politicians that since businesses have been “resistive” to using their transportation product, that they need a law MANDATING that 20% of all goods from NYC to Denver go the golf cart route! Senators Kerry & Lieberman are now agents of these lobbyists.
And the claimed benefit of all of this? Economic recovery. There will be lots of new jobs in the golf cart business! (But don’t be surprised to see “Made in China” stamped on many of these carts.)
What about the economic loss due to the higher shipping cost, and the slower, much less dependable transportation? Don’t worry about it. Come back mañana.
Hopefully this analogy makes things clearer, as this is the insane path we are now on. For a more thorough discussion of this situation, see Energy Presentation
John Droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate
5/12/10
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.
Given our history of degenerating arguments, I don’t plan to respond to John about this. But I think he needs to consider this Los Angeles Times article about oil company subsidies while he argues against incentives to develop wind power.
An excerpt:
Shall we say that those who pump the oil get the grease?
Fred Bortz
Sir:
You are welcome to your opinions, but occasionally they ought to be based on facts.
For example: I am not a “Climate Change Denier”. My website makes it VERY clear where I stand.
For example: to say “he repeatedly called you unscientific because you didn’t agree with his point.” is totally false. The fundamental issue is about PROCESS, not some “point.”
For example: to cite some unsigned opinion piece as a “rebuttle” well that is certainly a scientific rebuttal. I’ll have to stop asking for independent science right away!
Fred, you’ve done it again!
You allowed your good nature to get you suckered into an argument with a climate change denier in environmentalist’s clothing.
Then you kept going even though he repeatedly called you unscientific because you didn’t agree with his point. You even kept going after he criticized you for having an open mind by considering other sources.
You came close several times to ending the discussion, but “Energy Expert” suckered you into continuing. I wondered how long it would take you to decide you had enough!
So you earn a huge Gadfly bite for giving the self-professed expert so much of your time. Next time, Google the guy before entering into a discussion. You would even have found a 2007 blog entry by one of John Droz’s Adirondack neighbors that makes many of the same points that you do.
CHOMP!
For the rest of you who may be tempted to read the other comments, don’t bother!
A word to Faux-EnergyExpert: Attack me all you please, but don’t expect a response. This Gadfly bites once and leaves.
This bite of reality brought to you by Gadfly.
Fred:
Since you are against as hominems, I’m sure there is a constructive comment there somewhere.
The basic, fundamental point you have failed to grasp throughout this extended correspondence is this:
This is not about the conclusion but the process.
It is concievable that wind energy may eventually be worthwhile — the odds are very much against this, but it is possible.
Whether that happens or not is irrelevant.
What is totally wrong here is the PROCESS.
1 – Complex technical issues, like energy sources, absolutely should be vetted via the Scientific Method before being forced on the public.
2 – THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.
So if believing in #1, and if being cogniscent of #2, makes me arrogent, and a know-it-all, so be it!
You’re right. You’re brilliant. You only seem arrogant because no one in the world knows as much as you on this subject. You are the only one who knows what true science is.
Everyone who has come to a different conclusion is deluded, dishonest, or both.
Grovel, grovel, grovel.
You may now have the last word.
Fred:
I stated several points where you were factually wrong.
To say that this is going in circles is yet another mischaracteriztion.
I look forward to the day when you contact me with an apology sayinging something to the effect that
“John, OK, I was wrong. Wind energy was totally misrepresented. We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars for this product du jour and have been rewarded with a CO2 savings of about 1%. That works out to about $1000 per pound of CO2. I wish I knew that this was such a high cost low benefit idea years ago. Thanks for trying to open my eyes. Sorry for the obstinance.”
Your friend, Fred
We’re going in circles now.
Time to leave the merry-go-round.
Fred:
1 – There absoutely IS a mandate. Twenty nine states are FORCING consumers to use renewable energy through Renewable Energy Standards. The Kerry- Lieberman bill is proposing to do the same thing federally. If you understood this business more then you would be aware of this.
2 – “There won’t be a million or a billion unless businesses find this to be profitable.”
Wind energy IS profitable by definition as the government has GUARANTEED a profit. I explained this before, yet you continue to be oblivious of it. If you had a better understanding of the energy business you would get that fundamental point
3 – “Others look at that same empirical evidence and choose to invest in the technology.” Yes they “invest” (as I have explained before) because there is basically a guaranteed 25% return. These investors would be investing in plastic banana peels if the government set them up the way wind energy is. You seem to think they are investing for some “technical” reason! IT IS ALL ABOUT THE GUARANTEED MONEY.
4 – I do NOT advocate business as usual. I advocate improving our environment, and our energy sources, by using sound scientific solutions.
5 – I have avoided ad hominem comments and apologize for any that seem to come across that way.
6 – You object to having to “have to accept your conclusions about what the evidence means or your economic projections.” I have no economic projections! I use government (e.g. EIA) projections. They conclude that wind energy is WAY more expensive.
Again: we will solve our energy and environmental problems by using the Scientific Method, or by letting lobbyists setup our policies and tests and conditions.
You have consistently advocated the latter.
I’ll make a few addenda by quoting and replying about other differences that can’t be resolved.
“But testing should be done BEFORE the public is mandated to use something.”
There is NO mandate. Mandates presume that we know the result. Yet you keep repeating this political viewpoint as if the sense of a mandate is universal. The most I would say is that government policy is keeping the wind- and solar-power options open until we know more about its viability in a future with a smart grid. That’s far from mandating that we use those power sources.
“There STILL is no independent data that shows that these are at least equivalent to our conventional sources. Should we wait for a million? a Billion?”
There won’t be a million or a billion unless businesses find this to be profitable. Sometimes the kind of “independent” data you want is not available. I’ll settle for the next best thing. Lots of people invest in a technology. If they make money, they invest more. If they lose money, they move on. Investors tend to make objective decisions. I still can’t figure out why you think the number will grow so large if it is not a money-making proposition.
“Contrary to what you are asserting, I have no “preferred model.” My position is based on empirical evidence.”
Others look at that same empirical evidence and choose to invest in the technology. They are looking at wind-power as something that will have near 100% utilization and is part of the base. The difference between your prediction and theirs is based on the choice of model using the same evidence that you have.
“2 – Cap & Trade schemes are more bunko politics. Not surprisingly, the exact same situation exists with AGW as wind wind energy: the scientific method has NOT been applied.”
Perhaps the real issue is that you don’t think we need to worry about CO2. In that case, we have very little common ground here. I agree that cap and trade is not the best solution, but to reduce CO2, I think we need to put a price on using the environment. My preference would be a straight carbon tax to acknowledge that emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is likely to lead to future geopolitical problems. (The Defense Department has noted that the social consequence of climate change is one of the greatest threats, if not the greatest threat, to our future security.)
In the end, I’ll accept cap-and-trade if that’s the only politically viable alternative to business as usual. Based on plenty of science, I draw the political conclusion that business as usual is not a viable option for our future.
“During a moment of candor you begrudgingly acknowledged that I had more expertise here. Additionally, I have no other agenda than to insist that science be more rigorously followed in our technical decisions.”
I acknowledge that you know more about the specifics of different power plants. I don’t think your expertise extends to politics or economics.
I agree that policy-makers need to make decisions based on the evidence. But that doesn’t mean they have to accept your conclusions about what the evidence means or your economic projections. I’m not disputing your evidence. I’m disputing the economic model you are using to analyze it. Your conclusion results from your wariness about the potential of energy storage and smart-grid technology. Others are more optimistic, and after due diligence have invested their money and time into wind power. It is too soon to tell whether their assessment is right, notwithstanding your insistence that they are wrong.
“Yet when I categorically tell you that we are being taken advantage of, and that profiteers are studiously avoiding doing real science, you choose to buy into their con.”
That is simply an unfair, ad hominem attack. As I have said repeatedly, I am keeping an open mind. Your statements indicate that you have already made up yours. In fact, your opinion is so strong that you accuse people who disagree with you of lacking good judgment. Those kind of statements are the reason I broke off the previous threads on this post.
I think it is probably time to end this one as well.
To paraphrase George Burns and to add a little levity after your gratuitous insult about my judgment: “Say goodbye, John.” (It was, “Say goodnight, Gracie.”)
Goodbye, John.
Fred Bortz
1 – I have no problem with testing. But testing should be done BEFORE the public is mandated to use something. You seem to gloss over this little detail.
Further, regarding wind energy the government has skipped over that scientific step (due to others thinking like yourself). Now there are some 100,000 turbines spinning away. And guess what? There STILL is no independent data that shows that these are at least equivalent to our conventional sources. Should we wait for a million? a Billion?
So you have had it both ways: no initial independent test AND no subsequent verification testing. The lobbyists are saying “sweet!”
Contrary to what you are asserting, I have no “preferred model.” My position is based on empirical evidence.
Other “models” that show wind is a good thing are put forward by self-serving sources. To get their “model” to support their political agenda, they have made favorible and inaccurate assumptions. It’s all a game to manipulate individuals like yourself.
2 – Cap & Trade schemes are more bunko politics. Not surprisingly, the exact same situation exists with AGW as wind wind energy: the scientific method has NOT been applied.
Scientists are skeptical by nature, critical thinkers by eduction, and demanders of empirical evidence.
Political agenda pushers are followers who go along with superficial good sound bites based on manipulated models, as it soothes their guilt — which has been instilled as part of the plan.
During a moment of candor you begrudgingly acknowledged that I had more expertise here. Additionally, I have no other agenda than to insist that science be more rigorously followed in our tehnical decisions.
Yet when I categorically tell you that we are being taken advantage of, and that profiteers are studiously avoiding doing real science, you choose to buy into their con.
I can only bring the horse to water.
Fred:
1 – “Solar and geothermal energy are not human-controlled either”. You are right about solar, and that is one of the reasons why solar is also unlikely to succeed. You are mistaken about geothermal. read the MIT study cited in the Presentation. Geothermal is completely different from wind and solar, and is dispatchable.
2 – “Imagine…” Your fanticiful hypothesis amounts to having an extreme amount of redundancy. And when that doesn’t work, add more. Read the analogy again. This is exactly the parallel I warned of. When the 100 golf carts don’t do the job of one Mack truck, send 1000.
Additionally, everything is predicated on assumptions. This is also what I said that we are doing: pushing pie-in-the-sky political agendas, and not going about this in a scientific manner. If, in fact your hypothesis can work, and be affordable, then PROVE it, BEFORE we publicly go down this path.
3 – “if society has chosen to place a cost on CO2…” This is yet another tactic of the golf cart lobbyists. Since they know that their favored product will cost significantly more, their strategy to make it seem not so bad is to increase the cost of their competition. Clever, but not scientific.
4 – “extremely high cost with minuscule benefits” is not just my assessment, but the assesment of EVERY independent energy expert I know: hundreds. Again, it is not my responsibility to prove or disprove anything.
The way science works is that it is the 100% responsibility of a promoter of a product that is represented to be a potential solution to a problem, to provide independent, comprehensive proof that their product indeed solves the problem. And this is all done BEFORE we force the public to pay for their product.
NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
Carefully study the rest of the Presentation.
John, we’ve both stated our arguments, so let me summarize where I think our basic disagreements lie. They won’t be resolved here, so I don’t think there’s much point in continuing past a summary statement for each of us.
1. You keep saying things like “PROVE it, BEFORE we publicly go down this path.” My reply has been that you can’t prove something based on a model alone. You need to test it in practice. In this particular case, we don’t agree about what makes a reasonable model of the technology and economics, so neither of us can persuade the other based on models alone.
Your preferred model predicts that wind power will be a waste of time, money, and effort. Others prefer a model that says that wind power looks feasible. I find that other model more reasonable for the same reason I find your analogy defective (see my very first response to you). Your Mack trucks vs. golf carts approach does not allow for a new technology that is neither–distributed power delivery. It doesn’t matter whether the power comes from a lot of small sources or one large source since the smart grid allows it to be distributed as needed.
Moving away from the analogy to the real world, our major disagreement on the technical side is whether to consider wind power to be part of the baseline. Your whole cost argument seems to depend on the assumption that it can never serve that purpose. The argument of others, which I find persuasive, says it should be. [An aside: Many natural systems seem to illustrate that lots of small things (like the total mass of Earth’s bacteria) add up to more than all the big things (the total mass of complex organisms).]
Since we disagree on that basic element of economic/energy modeling, it is impossible for either of us to persuade the other that our view is the right one. However, as scientists, we are both open to seeing what the evidence shows us. This disagreement will be resolved when we see what happens in practice. That’s why I keep saying the answer lies not in a proof beforehand but an empirical case study.
2. The second point of disagreement is whether to account for the environmental cost of conventional (Mack truck) power plants, or, more practically, whether we expect government policies to make that happen. You state in your presentation that you are an environmentalist and that you belong to many environmental organizations. I presume, then, that you are not among those who argue that we should continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at current rates.
The question is, how do we reduce CO2 emissions? Most people think it has to be done through economic incentives. And the political trends in most of the world are already clear. A carbon tax may be the most direct and honest way of doing that, but other countries are already setting up cap-and-trade to accomplish the same thing.
Our disagreement here seems to be that you consider such policies as artificially subsidizing wind power, while I see the lack of such policies as artificially subsidizing fossil fuel plants. So, again, we have fundamentally opposed models of what makes for good public policy. From watching political developments around the world, I think it is likely that the U.S. will eventually implement cap-and-trade as well.
We agree that such a policy will favor wind power, but we probably disagree whether the lack of such policy favors the status quo. We also probably disagree on whether such a policy is likely to be implemented in the U.S.
Our predictions mean nothing, of course. Time will tell which of our evaluations of both the political and technological future of wind-power plants comes to pass.
I think you can agree with this: I hope that whatever road we follow does more good than harm. But the most important thing is to keep our minds open so that we can change course as much or as little as necessary.
Fred Bortz
John, I think there’s a flaw in the way you are analyzing things here.
It does so by responding to demand, which means you need a generator that can change its output to match the load.
Solar and geothermal energy are not human-controlled either, but in any case, this is not a problem–see below.
You don’t need to do that, and here’s why.
Imagine we have a smart grid and some energy storage devices connecting to thousands of small solar, wind, or geothermal generators. They are spread over a wide territory, so you can count on certain minimum and maximum levels of power from them. Any one of them may be off-line or not generating because of atmospheric conditions, but there are enough that the range of total production is fairly predictable.
The smart grid allows all power companies to divide all the power from those sources according to a formula. Suppose that you own a power company, and your share of that power ranges from 15 to 25 percent of your average load at some point in the future. (I’d bet the uncertainty is smaller than that if you have enough generators in enough places.) You can use that as part of your baseline generation and adjust the demand on the rest of your baseline accordingly. Their costs are likely to be low because they will always be selling all their energy output, unlike coal-fired plants that operate at a low level at off-peak hours.
[Political aside: Because fuel costs are zero, you will be paying for depreciating capital and transmission only for that electricity. Those costs will probably be competitive with conventional plants, and may even be cheaper, especially if society has chosen to place a cost on CO2 emissions through cap-and-trade or a straight carbon tax. If not, I would argue that society is subsidizing fossil fuels by not recouping the real costs that are likely to result from climate change. But let’s not argue the merits and just assume the most likely outcome is that CO2 emission will not be free a decade from now.]
That means that as your conventional plants age, you can replace them with fewer or smaller plants, or you can keep the same level and reduce the amount of more expensive energy you get to meet your peak loads. That energy will come from the same source you currently use for that purpose.
I think the flaw in your logic is that you are not counting wind and solar as part of the future baseline.
So I don’t share your assessment of the bottom line for wind and other renewables: “extremely high cost with minuscule benefits.” On the contrary, I think the costs will be competitive or cheaper than fossil fuel and the benefits will go far beyond mere economics.
That’s the crux of our disagreement as I see it.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
I appreciate your taking the time you did to look at some of the Presentation, and your effort in presenting a balanced argument.
I have nothing per se against a Smart Grid. It, like everthing else, should be subjected to a hard critical analysis beforehand.
Almost every analysis that has been done has used increased wind power as a “benefit.” This is circular reasoning, as wind energy has unproven net benefits. Needless to say, though, that the same self-serving lobbyists that are promoting wind energy, are also the ones who say we absolutely must have a Smart Grid.
Here’s the relevant part to understand. Our electrical grid needs to exactly balance the supply and demand on a second-by-second basis.
Up until now, we have used a combination of electrical sources to satisfy the three types of load that we have (explained further on in the Presentation).
Each of these sources is called “dispatchable” which essentially means, is human controlled.
Now, with wind energy, we are (for the first time) adding a source that is not human controlled.
Can I tell a wind project that it MUST supply X MW of power tomorrow at 3 PM? No.
The after-the-fact solution to this real world issue is to control demand, not supply.
Thus, the real main reason for the Smart Grid.
And, BTW, sure there are all sorts of proposals for storage of wind energy. There is money on the table so profiteers come out of the woodwork.
The basic problem is that even the cheapest are very expensive. Add this to the fact that wind energy is more expensive than any source of conventional power we have (per EIA) we end up with an exceptionally expensive source of power.
For what benefit?
Again: there was zero benefit was proved beforehand, and there is zero proof of benefit afterwards. Additionally, all independent real world evidence says very low benefit.
Bottom line: extremely high cost with miniscule benefits.
This is not a scientific solution, but palliative political pablum.
No, I don’t say that. I have repeatedly disputed that misrepresentation of what I introduced as an interesting side conversation here.
For the last time, I repeat: The results of the “scientific method” are only as good as the models and data you have available, and sometimes the best way to get more data is simply to try something.
Or to put it another way: Analyses are based on imperfect models, and sometimes you just need to test things in the real world.
That is a scientific approach, although perhaps more empirical than you would like.
Now I suggest that we end this discussion and pick up with my more recent comments about your presentation itself.
Fred Bortz
After arguing with our Energy Expert, John Droz, about whether this argument is political or scientific, I decided to look at his presentation.
It’s not a polemic, and it appears to be sincere. I went through about 40% of it before deciding I didn’t need to read more to get a good flavor of its main thrust. I didn’t find any details about how he was computing costs to make comparisons among the many alternative energy sources. Perhaps that comes later. But as I note in one of our arguments, cost estimates are inherently laden with political assumptions, so any arguments are probably more about politics than science.
My first dispute is John’s claim that this presentation is purely scientific. If it has a political point of view, that isn’t a problem for me as long as the readers can deduce that viewpoint. So I’m not criticizing it for being political in intent. It certainly doesn’t have the obnoxious tone (“if you don’t agree, you’re not thinking scientifically”) that John displays in his post here and in his other discussions with me. So as a piece of politics, it’s reasonable. I may not agree with its point, but I’ll give him credit for avoiding the shrill political tone that we find all too much of in today’s election and issue campaigns.
It does a good job of showing the current balance of energy and the basic ideas (base load, peak load, energy storage, etc.)
But I disagree with it nevertheless, and not because I have a firm political position on wind power. I question a few unsupported assertions or assumptions that John makes in his presentation.
The first is the claim that there is no scientific analysis to support wind power, that its support is all hype and lobbying. He and I argue that ad nauseum below. Needless to say, I disagree with that claim.
It also says that there is no practical means of energy storage on the horizon, which makes wind energy’s non-uniform delivery a problem. I won’t argue the technology of that point, because I don’t know enough about it. However, I’m sure you can find many arguments that do see practical energy storage on the horizon, such as pumping water upstream when there is excess wind energy and allowing that energy to produce hydropower when there is less wind.
The more serious objection I have is his glib dismissal of the smart grid, which would make use of energy storage even more feasible, though that is not its main advantage. By allowing excess electrical energy to flow to places where there is a deficiency, load balancing can make up for the variability. Many distributed variable sources such as wind and solar can add together to produce a pretty good baseline. The more diverse sources you combine, the less variation there is from the average.
In my view, the Smart Grid is by far the most promising solution to our energy production problems. It is technologically quite feasible, and it allows small variable sources, such as home solar cells or home windmills, to feed power into the grid when their power is not needed locally. That argument also makes sense for wind farms in remote, windy locations with no nearby users.
Now we can argue about details here, but I concede to John’s greater knowledge. Still, I think the greatest incorrect assumption John is making in his argument against wind power is that the Smart Grid will not have the economic and energy impact that advocates claim for it.
With different assumptions about the future of the Smart Grid and, to a lesser extent, energy storage, it is quite easy to make a scientific and economic case in favor of wind power using the same computations that John would make otherwise.
For that reason, I support the investment our government is making in this nascent and promising technology. We’ll have plenty of time to evaluate whose assumptions were correct in a few years when we can see what energy-storage and smart-grid technologies are coming to the fore. We will adjust our course as necessary toward the most promising solutions then. Will it be wind? Perhaps. Should we consider wind as a possible option at this time and make public and private investments into it? John and I disagree on that. He says it’s doomed to be expensive, so we shouldn’t. I say there are real possibilities, so we should. More people are on my side of the argument right now, but that means nothing. The technology will prove itself–or not.
I hope John is more willing to accept this critique as based on scientific thinking than he seemed to be in our other, more heated arguments.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
We are in agreement that this is a political matter.
I say that we should apply the scientific method before ANY black box is allowed on the grid, and forced on the public.
You say: 1) forgo the scientific method [as we don’t have time, etc.], 2) connect up the black box [because the sellers say it’s a good thing], 3) fund it with taxpayer money [becaue we fund other things anyway], 4) don’t ask for any proof even after the fact [because that would be embarrassing] and 5) keep throwing MORE money at it in the hopes that it will get better.
And you call your position a “scientific” one?
Please note:
1) the most prominent “DOE” report on wind energy was written by AWEA staff and their carefuly selected supporters.
2) consumers have zero choice about whether they “like” wind energy, irregardless of how educated they are. Twenty nine states controlled by lobbyists have mandated that they must use wind energy. There is zero accountability regarding its effectiveness.
The federal government is now contemplating the exact same RES idea. I have worked for years with state and federal senators and know that they have ZERO scientific evidence that wind energy is comparable to our conventional sources.
Again, wind energy theoretically COULD be a good thing.
We should not mandate that citizens have to use it until it is subjected to the Scientific Method.
That’s where we differ. Politicians have a whole litany of excuses for avoiding the tests and proof. You have endorsed that viewpoint. Shame on you.
Of course technical solutions should be evaluated scientifically as well as economically. I have never claimed otherwise. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of data. My difference with you is that sometimes the only way to get that data about any kind of technology is to build it and see if people’s models–yours included–hold up.
In other words it’s time for empirical investigations rather than theoretical ones. That’s still a scientific approach, though not as “pure” as the use of the term “scientific method” seems to imply.
Our real disagreement is political, not scientific. So stop making the absurd claim that there is no science but yours! And please stop insulting me by saying I am not being scientific by keeping my mind open about the technology.
My political view is that government grants and subsidies for R&D and incentives to mitigate risk for wind power are reasonable. (In fact, NSF and DOE grants require evaluation by panels of scientific experts for feasibility and the potential to produce valuable insights.) Those incentives do not cost trillions, as you state. The only way economies will spend trillions on wind power plants is if they prove to be viable and economical. Otherwise, other technologies will carry the day.
Similar incentives can be found in almost any major technological development in recent history. Furthermore, we are still subsidizing traditional energy sources in our tax code and, for oil in particular, by providing military people by the thousands and equipment to protect sources of supply. And we are also allowing our environment to be used as a sink or waste depository without assessing the long term cost of direct damage and long-term climate change.
Also, your model seems to treat those expenses for wind power as costs, when it is just as reasonable to treat them as investments that may pay for themselves in the future. However it accounts for those costs, your model is not only scientific but political.
In fact, any scientific assessment comparing various approaches to meeting our energy needs will be using a model laden with political judgments and constraints.
The only way for me to buy into your model is to accept your political assertions that wind power is being “forced” on an uninformed public.
I do not accept those assertions. The jury is still out on the role of wind power in the future energy mix, and the U.S. public is well informed–at least if they choose to be. They have the chance to evaluate a variety of arguments in the legislative process and through the mainstream and alternative media (including blogs and commentary like this one). They have scientists who serve on committees to review the merits of research grants, with their decisions open to public scrutiny.
So my disagreement with you is political, not scientific. I don’t expect you to change your political views. All I ask is that you stop asserting that they are purely scientific judgments. And then we should simply agree to disagree on the politics here and move on to other topics.
One thing that I hope you will agree about. Neither of us has much more to offer on this subject than we have already stated here.
Enough? I think so!
Politically yours,
Fred Bortz
Fred:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to correct yet another misunderstanding.
At no time was I asking you to accept any of my conclusions. It is the lobbyists that are asking you to accept their conclusions and you seem more than willing to do that!
As a scientist, I have a very simple position here: technical solutions (e.g. wind energy) should not be forced on the public before being subjected to the scientific method.
You either agree with this science-based position or you don’t.
I’m very interested finding ways to deal with energy and environmental issues.
Up to now, I’ve been careful to stick to science and technology and not to get personal with you.
But I will now tell you directly what I think of your approach.
I’m just not interested in having a circular argument with someone who touts his political opinions as science, claims vast expertise, and then demeans those who choose not to accept his conclusions as unscientific or worse.
You tell me that my choice to keep an open mind rather than accepting your conclusion makes me unscientific. Why should I want to continue to go round and round with such a person?
That is the position that this scientist takes, no matter how many times you claim I am being unscientific.
Enough!
Fred Bortz
Fred:
You SHOULD have a further interest as something like a trillion dollars will likely be wasted on such lobbyist propoganda follies.
Additionally, if you are concerned by such issues as CO2, all current independent evidence says that this expenditure will not turn out to be consequentially beneficial.
If you have no further interest in such matters, that’s fine.
That is not the position a scientist would take.
No further interest.
Fred:
It is amazing that you are skeptical about an independent scientist’s position – yet you buy hook ine and sinker self-servig promoters claims that they will do good things, but all data showing so is confidential.
And you are nothing if not consistent. Once again you have distorted what I said.
For instance, I said nothing about anything being totally wrong.
I said that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be made to pay for a product without prior independent proof that it is at least as good as the alternatives.
No such scientific evidence exists. If you have it please forward it immediately.
Evidently you don’t have such evidence, as you have already moved on to unscientific excuse number two: Give it some time and everything will work out tomorrow.
Thank you for showing how applicable my initial analogy is, as that is exactly the position of the lobbyists. Pay them to have golf carts move our merchandise from NYC to Denver. Don’t ask for any proof that this makes technical, economic or environmental sense. It will all work out tomorrow.
This is not science and no scientist supports such nonsense.
No one knows everything about a subject, so I have a healthy skepticism about your broad claim to expertise, especially when there is politics involved–such as a discussion of what constitutes subsidies (like a fleet of ships in the Persian Gulf), true environmental costs (including what costs climate change will create–extremely difficulty to project at this point), whether to consider R&D dollars as present expenditure or investments, etc.
So cost models are part of the calculation (and very political and subjective), and people have different ways of accounting for some of the things I mention in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, economic projections are only as valid as the predictions of human behavior they are built on.
Also, how can you be so certain that technological developments will not reduce the cost significantly in the future.
Your conclusion is therefore based on a model and set of assumptions that many people would disagree with. That’s why, despite your argument, scientific and economic analysis tells other people that the business has a future, including the ability to sustain itself without subsidies in the long run. (Please drop your claim that no one else is a scientist on this topic but you. That makes you seem arrogant.)
Whenever someone claims something is “totally wrong” based on such an incomplete theory, I remain dubious of both the theory and the person who claims he’s smarter than everyone else in the world on the subject.
Let’s drop it here.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
Unfortunately you seem to have a tendency to project your biases onto the statements I have made.
I “know” that no one has utilized the scientific method in assessing wind energy as this is one of the areas of my expertise, and I know literally hundreds of industry experts, and have been researching this for years.
This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exhorbatantly subsidized by various governments.
It does not exist because wind energy is a reliable source of electricity – as it is provably not.
It does not exist because wind energy is an economic source of electricity – as it is provably not.
It does not exist because wind energy is making consequential environmental benefits – as there is no independent evidence that says it does.
This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exorbitantly subsidized by various governments — pandering to political whims.
Your unscientific answer to these facts is to assert that maybe someone’s models say otherwise.
I’m sure that someone’s modes DO say otherwise. And I am equally sure that: 1) these models were made up by people with a financial interest in the outcome, and 2) that they have no real world proof that their models are accurate.
This business exists for one and only one reason: that it is being exorbitantly subsidized by various governments.
As a scientist I say that this is totally wrong.
If entrepreneurs want to experiment with wind energy — then go for it. They have my full support!
That’s a far cry from making ratepayers PAY for their experiments, and taxpayers PAY for their experiments.
NO public electricity source should be allowed on the grid until there is independent scientific proof that it is at least equal to our conventional sources.
If the PUBLIC will be paying for this, then the proof should be PUBLIC. For these profiteers to say they have the data but can’t show it to you is absurd. No scientist would accept that answer.
So, as far as what is known publicly (and among independent energy experts), ZERO real world proof exists that wind energy is at least equal to our conventional sources. Again, you can prove me wrong by supplying the data.
As a scientist I say that this is totally wrong.
Given the large number of companies that have chosen to go into the wind power business, and given the need to develop credible business plans and conduct due diligence, how can you assume that none of the people involved used scientific principles?
Their decisions are based on proprietary work, so I can’t cite specific reports. However, it is much more reasonable to say that they used different models than you do and came to different conclusions.
Those models are just beginning to be tested in the real world.
Furthermore, the scientific method does not produce only a single conclusion when the data is incomplete and the models are ill-defined.
So we are on very different pages when it comes to judging your model versus the models of the others.
You are certain of the correctness of your model and of the outcome before it happens, while I am open to letting the experiment, if that’s what you wish to call it, play out.
Your insistence that no one else is being scientific — repeated in virtually every post — prejudices your judgment. That kind of prejudice and accusation has no place in science. It suggests a closed mind, not an open one.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
I’m sorry that you have chosen to misrepresent my position. Hopefully it is an inadvertent honest error that you will promptly correct
You say that I have a “total unwillingness to accept that anyone else has looked at the same evidence with a scientific mindset and come to a different conclusion about the economic viability of Wind Power.”
I said no such thing.
What I stated is that wind energy has NOT been evaluated using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
If you agree with that then we are on the same page, as scientists.
If you think this HAS been done and I am unaware of it, then please point me to the comprehensive real world testing of wind energy by independent qualified scientists.
I have been reading a book for review called Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz, and it has led me to reflect on the long interchange I had on this thread with “EnergyExpert” about his claim that Wind Power is a boondoggle.
What was most striking to me in that interchange was EE’s total unwillingness to accept that anyone else has looked at the same evidence with a scientific mindset and come to a different conclusion about the economic viability of Wind Power.
To him, it is impossible to accept that reputable engineers, savvy investors, and thorough bankers and financial analysts all around the world have looked carefully at the evidence and projections, and decided the technology is worth their efforts and investments.
No, he concludes, they must be deluded or subsidized unreasonably by governments, and they have certainly not used good scientific judgment.
Among Schulz’s many interesting points is the asymmetry that exists between “my” ideas and “your” ideas. I am rational, logical, and scientific in drawing my conclusions, so you must be irrational, illogical, or unscientific in drawing yours. Because of my rationality and reason, my conclusions must be right, and you are simply wrong. Substitute “EE is” for “I am,” “EE’s” for “my,” “others” for “you,” and “others'” for “your” or “yours,” in the preceding two sentences, and the connection of Schulz’s book to this discussion becomes clear.
In the case of my comments, I wanted to make an interesting side point about the limitations of strict scientific thinking and the value of trial-and-error learning when we must go beyond those limits. That’s part of the difference between science and technology.
I found EE’s conclusions striking because they were so clearly different from the mainstream analysis of this technology. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it certainly means he carries a large burden of proof.
I am still keeping an open mind about the possibility that he may have come up with a useful point of view, but his almost religious fervor for his view and total disdain for the conclusions of thousands of other people who have “put their money where their mouth is” with respect to wind power diminishes my interest in delving into his arguments.
In short, his insistence that he is the only one to have analyzed this technology with a rational, logical, open scientific mindset — coupled with his insistence that all the others who came to a different conclusion are deluded, dishonest, or manipulative and certainly not scientific — makes him seem like a close-minded zealot instead.
I’ll probably post my review of Being Wrong on my Science Blog pages after it is published in a major metropolitan newspaper. Stay tuned.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
You seem to have the belief that because someone offers a product or service, that it must make sense. Wow!
I tried to make it very clear that we do NOT have market conditions here, yet you seemed not to read that part. I’ll repeat:
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding that the investors return on a wind project is in proportion to the benefits it provides: more benefits = more profit, less benefits = less profit. That is totally in error, and is a key part of my point.
We are funding these people with ZERO independent scientific apriori evidence that industrial wind energy is technically, economically and environmentally sound, AND we are funding them with ZERO requirements that they provide any consequential technical, economic or environmental benefits.
The fact that Green Mountain Energy offers to gullible people the opportunity to pay extra for purple credits, is a Madoff level scam.
So, again, anyone who supports such a charade is not a scientist.
Since you asked, I’ll reply.
But this is it–even if you continue to insult me or misrepresent my words.
One link is enough to make my point, but there are several companies in the U.S. and many more around the world that disagree with you and put their money behind their beliefs.
This company has been supplying my home area with electricity since 1997. Some people are willing to pay extra for the power. I pass their windmills often while driving on the PA Turnpike.
http://www.greenmountainenergy.com/
[EDIT: I must have the wrong company for PA. I’m not taking the time to look for the right one, but we have our share of windmills.]
Now companies of all kinds use lobbyists to make their points, but that does not inherently make them liars or truth-tellers.
Now please stop insulting me for not accepting your conclusion when I see the wind-power industry making technological progress, despite your assertions about them.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
1 – You say “Others disagree with me”. Yes, lobbyists and others with a financial or political stake do promote wind energy.
2 – You say “Others have done their own scientific and economic analyses and concluded that wind power has a great future.” No independent scientific study has every concluded that wind energy is technically sound, economically affordable on its own, or that it has a consequential net environmental benefit. You seem to think otherwise, so it will be easy to prove me wrong. Please site the real world analysis done by an independent source that proves you right.
3 – You say “If their view turns out to be wrong, they will lose their investment and others will choose not to invest further.” This is almost incomprehensible that you are saying this. This whole situation is set up by the government to GUARANTEE a 25%± profit to wind developers. There is no one “losing” here other than taxpayers and rate payers. If wind energy does not save a single gram of CO2, these “investors” will be paid in FULL.
You seem to have a profound misunderstanding that the investors return on a wind project is in proportion to the benefits it provides: more benefits = more profit, less benefits = less profit. That is totally in error, and is a key part of my point.
We are funding these people with ZERO independent scientific apriori evidence that industrial wind energy is technically, economically and environmentally sound, AND we are funding them with ZERO requirements that they provide any consequential technical, economic or environmental benefits.
Yes, anyone who supports such a charade is not a scientist.
I am only jumping back in because you are misconstruing my words. Please speak for yourself and not for me.
I thought I was making an interesting point about the limitations of the “pure” scientific method versus real-world approaches, but it seems to have been lost because of your certainty that wind power is not an economically sound approach.
Others disagree with you. They have done their own scientific and economic analyses and concluded that wind power has a great future.
They have expressed confidence in those analyses by investing considerable amounts of their own money into it.
They are willing to test the opposing interpretations of the evidence in the real world. I think that is a rational way to figure out whether they are right.
If their view turns out to be wrong, they will lose their investment and others will choose not to invest further.
If their view turns out to be right, others will invest and we will see many more wind-power plants in five years.
Putting things to the test is a scientific approach, even if it means learning by trial and error.
So quit calling me unscientific just because I remain open to the possibility either view may turn out to be right.
Now I really need to get back to earning a living.
Fred Bortz
Sir:
I read very carefully Fred’s comments.
He is effectively saying “skip real scientific (independent, objective, comprehensive) testing beforehand, and focus the effort on engineering “fixes” after the fact.
That is preposterous.
Some things (e.g. wind energy) simply do not make technical, economic or environmental sense to “fix.”
Of course we’d know that before spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it if we had required scientific testing beforehand.
Get it now?
Fred discusses the limitations of science, but doesn’t dismiss its value:
EnergyExpert replies:
EnergyExpert ignores most of Fred’s earlier statements, including this:
Who can blame Fred for dropping this?
Last reply to Anonymous.
Thank you for providing a slightly modified version of the lobbyists pitch. When the golf carts (wind turbines) prove to be unacceptable: build more!
When redundancy doesn’t work, build more!
When the economics doesn’t work, build more!
When the reliability doesn’t work, build more!
When environmental benefits are trivial, build more!
I guess that I had the mistaken impression that a “Science Blog” might actually be mostly populated with scientists and citizens who support scientific principles.
Build massive wind farms and supply rail with electric engines to replace diesel. A one time investment in wind farms eventually is cheaper than oil especially when oil hits over $100.00 a barrel. Up front cost differed over 25 years for wind towers. In 25 years a barrel of oil $200.00. Deficit increases of $130 billion for cross country rail upgrade with spurs.
The single manufacture is now joined by others manufactures, EPA credits become available, pollution reduction warrants possible tax credits.
Their is no need to elevate a commercial train like a Japan commuter train since a 60 mph basic wheeled electric train goes as fast as a 18 wheel truck just keeping the delivery speed inline apples for apples. States already want electric trains for commuter use what a dream, but if the wind farms are available why not use them. In 50 years the energy is free as long as the wind towers are still operational.
Fred:
Everything has its limitations: science, engineering, etc.
You seem to want to dismiss the scientific investigative part due to the possibility that it might not be perfect. Strange position for scientist.
You state that “wind power is making its way without subsidies”. That is categorically false. Please provide a single documented example where industrial wind fits that category.
Why do we need to wait five years when we have some 100,000 turbines to get data from NOW? The answer is obvious: the data available today proves that wind power is an extremely expensive, very low benefit energy source. Lobbyists can only say “ignore what we have today and come back in the future”.
Exacly what I stated in my analogy.
You have been drinking the Koolaide my friend. Put on your science hat and do some critical thinking.
We’re talking past each other, and I just got a deadline for a book review. So you’ll have to settle for this, and I have to move on.
1. Science can only go so far. Then you have to try the technology to see if the engineering and economic projections hold up in practice. That was the only point I was trying to make in my first reply.
2. According to my reading of reputable sources, wind power is making its way without subsidies. It has its limitations, but there are areas where it appears to be a good economic alternative.
So I’ll leave the field open to you. You appear to have a firm position that wind power is a boondoggle, and I’m keeping an open mind about it.
We can revisit this in five years to see if the technology is developing as projected or not. It’s silly to argue about economic predictions when the evidence will be clearer in a short time.
Signing off.
Fred Bortz
Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters
An International English Journal of Research Letters
The journal publishes research letters related to
all aspects of the atmospheric sciences and physical oceanography.
The journal provides a rigorous peer-review process, rapid publication speeds, and maintains high standards in the quality of accepted manuscripts.
Final decision to your manuscript in 3 months.
Publication of your manuscript in 6 months.
We invite you to submit your manuscript to:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters
[email protected]
http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/aosl/ch/index.aspx
Fred:
You state that I ask ” for rational decision-making based on more information than we can possibly have.” That is simply a preposterous statement. I simply ask that we not allow electrical sources on the grid until they can be PROVEN to be at least equal to what they are replacing.
That is impossible???
You say “Wind power is clearly based on well-established science and technology.” Yes there is a history with wind power, and it was DISCARDED a hundred years ago as an inefficient and expensive source of electricity. The laws of physicis still apply and the ONLY reason it exists today is that it is artificially subsidized by the government.
You also fail to notice the contradiction between these two positions of yours. How can this technology be “based on well-established science and technology” and yet not have enough information to support a rational decision???
———-
I didn’t say that wind energy was a “black box.” What I said was that if someone came to us with a black box to use as an enrgy source and made several claims for it, what should we do?
It seems that your view is: let’s subsidize this new idea, put it on the grid and see what happens. We’ll work out any kinks later.
My view is: provide us with independent proof that your black box does what you claim and THEN we will consider subsidies and whether it makes sense to put in on the grid, based on how it stacks up with our other choices.
That seems to me to be the essense of our differing opinions.
I am distinguishing between the scientific method and engineering approaches. The latter should and usually do take science into account. Testing and analysis are vitally important in modern technology. But there is also an aspect of trial-and-error learning that I see as different from the strictly scientific approach.
That doesn’t make the products “black boxes,” which seems to be your assertion here. Wind power is clearly based on well-established science and technology–just like conventional power plants, nuclear power, solar power, geothermal, etc. How those technologies fare in a real-world society and economy is far less predictable than how they behave and what we compute their advantages, disadvantages, and costs to be.
In the real world, economic and political decision-making can’t always be scientific or completely rational because we just don’t have enough data at the time that we have to make choices, and we don’t have good predictive models about how people will respond to new products.
Those important decisions are inevitably based on imperfect or incomplete information. Sometimes you just have to put your best-designed products out there and see what works within our political and economic system. Sometimes you learn from failure modes you hadn’t anticipated.
I agree that the free market is not the solution. But we don’t have a completely free market, nor should we. Government regulation has a greater role in economic and political stability than the current political mood seems to accept as desirable. (I don’t agree with that mood. So I guess that means to the opponents, I’m a socialist like our non-Socialist pragmatist in the White House, whom I admire.)
So my point is simply this: Your statement calls for rational decision-making based on more information than we can possibly have. As I scientist, I disagree because I know when to defer to engineers instead.
Fred Bortz
Fred:
I’m assuming that you are a scientist, but am baffled by your unscientific answer.
According to your opinion, anyone who comes up with a blackbox gizmo to produce commercial electricity, should not be asked to PROVE its merits first, but rather should be allowed to connect to the grid and let’s just see what happens.
In that regard you are in 100% agreement with wind energy lobbyists, as that is exactly what happened there.
Then you say “we can’t do controlled experiments” regarding electricity production, to which I say exactly why not?
And you assert “The scope of its future use will be determined by many factors, including whether the total cost estimates and environmental impacts are correct and whether investors put their money into it.”
Of course this statement assumes a free market enterprise system, where good products get rewarded. That’s not the case in the electrical energy business. Investors are putting their money into wind energy for one reason: the government has GUARANTEED them a profit of some 25% per annum.
Additionally, the cost (to taxpayer and ratepayer) has been totally uneconomical, and the environmental effects (to humans, birds, bats, etc.) have been adverse.
Learning from failures is certainly advisable, but why would we go down the path of something we know is an extreme longshot? Inn this case what sense does it make to spend something like a TRILLION dollars on something that we KNOW is very high cost and only miniscue benefits?
Lastly, since you are an advocate of real world results, please show me the real world results of the some 100,000 turbines currently in operation worldwide.
For instance, how much CO2 have they saved and at what cost?
Energy Expert, the one part of your argument that I disagree with is the term scientific method. This is a question of engineering, technology, and economics.
The only way to determine whether a proposed energy source is feasible is to test it in the real world with as many safeguards as we can anticipate. We need no new science to tell us that wind power is feasible, and people have made reasonable economic analyses that say it definitely has a place in our energy future.
The scope of its future use will be determined by many factors, including whether the total cost estimates and environmental impacts are correct and whether investors put their money into it.
In other words, we need to approach it like the engineering project that it is and recognize how our testing and analysis are different from the scientific method. We can’t do controlled experiments here, nor do we need them. We just try a few alternatives and let the most suitable technology for our society and economy emerge.
We are bound to make a few mistakes along the way, perhaps even catastrophic ones, but learning from failures is the heart of technological development.
Fred Bortz
Several people have rightly asked for a more scientific explanation of this complex technical matter.
That is the point of the Energy Presentation.
Could you be any more annoying in your spamming of your damned Energy Presentation? You lose.
Fred:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I fully agree that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels.
Golf carts and Mack trucks are each a type of transportation.
Wind turbines and nuclear power are each types of electricity generation.
No amount of golf carts will truly replace 18-wheelers, as they indeed are different.
No amount of tubines will replace nuclear (or coal) power, as they indeed are different.
We should be investingating legitimate alternatives: which means utilizing the Scientific Method to evaluate the claims of proponents.
That has NOT been done for wind energy, as we are just accepting propoganda that they will work somehow someway someday.
This is not science and is the point of my analogy.
Again, it is all explained in much more detail at Energy Presentation
“EnergyExpert,”
I agree that energy policy is a complex technological and political issue, which is why I am watching Congress’ approach to compromise.
I recently replied to a friend’s e-mail complaining that the bill included nuclear power and off-shore drilling by saying that she was risking letting the ideal be the enemy of the good.
You appear to be making the same argument in the other direction by proposing a very poor analogy: “The fundamental question is: how many golf carts will it take to dependably replicate the performance of one Mack truck?”
Mack trucks and golf carts have different purposes. Wind, solar, nuclear, and conservation all play a part in reducing our dependence on coal or oil. Off-shore drilling, we hope, will replace foreign oil rather than adding to our total consumption.
We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels indirectly by allowing our atmosphere and streams to be used as cost-free sinks and using our military to assure supply. If we paid the real cost for fossil fuel energy rather than hiding it in our defense budget and in hard to quantify but very real environmental costs, then the economics would sort out how much of which kind of energy we would use.
Admittedly there are also government funds going into R&D for renewables, but the oil and coal industry also have their share of incentives now and in their history.
Right now, we are indeed comparing apples to orangutans when trying to figure out which sources of energy make the most sense under which circumstances because no one really knows what the full actual cost of any of those sources is.
Fred Bortz