Which Barack Obama has adopted, in part. This time from the Wall Street Journal.
Currently, alternative sources -- wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric and geothermal -- provide less than 7% of yearly domestic consumption. Throw out hydro and geothermal, and it's only 4%. For the foreseeable future, renewables simply cannot provide the scale and volume of energy needed to meet growing U.S. demand, which is expected to increase by 20% over the next two decades. Even with colossal taxpayer subsidies, renewables probably can't even slow the rate of growth of carbon-based fuel consumption, much less replace it.
Take wind power, which has grown rapidly though still only provides about two-thirds of 1% of all U.S. electricity. The Energy Department optimistically calculates that ramping up merely to 20% by 2030 would require more than $2 trillion and turbines across the Midwest "wind corridor," plus multiple offshore installations. And we'll need a new "transmission superhighway system" of more than 12,000 miles of electric lines to connect the wind system to population centers. A mere $150 billion won't cut it. Mr. Obama also didn't mention that this wind power will be more expensive than traditional sources like coal.
A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. (Sorry, couldn't resist borrowing that line from Senator Dirksen.)
Gore wants to replace all of our fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy facilities in just ten years. You may recall that the Seattle PI thinks that's nifty idea, while I am not sure that it is even possible. Obama is a little less grandiose in his proposals, perhaps because he is running for office rather than trying to be a saint and a stock promoter, like Al Gore.
The Journal's editorial does not give an estimate of the benefits from Obama's plan, unfortunately. It is difficult to believe that they would be greater than the costs.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Here's an earlier post, with more numbers.
The Journal editorial mentions the need for energy storage facilities to supplement solar and wind power. Most such facilities would add greatly to the cost of power from solar and wind. But it is worth mentioning that there is one form of solar thermal power that may not need extensive storage facilities, using molten salts to store heat. The Wikipedia article gives a number for the efficiency of those systems which seems implausible, and their source did not give enough details for me to evaluate their number. But, knowing how efficient vacuum bottles can be, I am not ready to reject that number automatically.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 06, 2008 04:00 PM | Email ThisThey omitted an important word.
The above SHOULD read:
''wind power will be MUCH more expensive ....''
... and they should have added at the end:
''like coal and nuclear.''
And WRT ''St. Al's'' suggestion; i.e.:
''Gore wants to replace all of our fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy facilities in just ten years.''
That is so obviously impossible and patently absurd, that it is somewhat surprising that even HE would make public statements to that effect..... oh, wait: I forgot:
Technical, production, and engineering realities are just irritating distractions, and not the type of details that the far-left moonbat dreamers wish to be bothered with. Sheesh:
Just meeting Senator McCain's worthy but ambitious goal of building 45 new Generation-III+ nuclear plants by 2030 will take a major and sustained national commitment, and even if fully successful even THAT will not allow us to shut down all fossil fuel plants, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Just how far out in deep-space orbit ARE some of these people (somewhere way beyond geo-synchronous com sat orbits, me thinks....).
Posted by: Methow Ken on August 6, 2008 06:22 PMYes: THERMAL solar (not PV solar) with molten salt storage is one area where some interesting proposals are being floated. But remember that to make a significant impact we are talking very large scale storage. And the temperatures being talked about for some of the salt storage proposals are up there with the NGNP (Next Generation Nuclear Plant), which is going to be a Very High Temperature Gas Reactor (VHTGR). You need some pretty exotic materials at those temperaturs, which again adds to the cost.
SUMMARY: When you look at the TOTAL COST of all components for large-scale thermal solar (including long-distance power distribution infrastructure requirements), I stand by my statement in above post:
Right now it still looks like both wind and thermal solar will be much more expensive than coal and Gen-III+ nuclear. That doesn't mean we should give up on wind and solar power R&D, but they can't be viable on a large scale if they end up costing 4-5 times as much either.
Posted by: Methow Ken on August 6, 2008 06:32 PMThis does not solve a power problem per se, but it may solve a water problem so we can grow biomass.
The cost of pipes to the aquifer may be less than the cost of power transmission lines to the grid.
Posted by: Gregg on August 6, 2008 09:16 PMWith the elimination of gas heating and oil heating and converting those sources to electricity, there is also the cost of retrofitting the network and the homes to these increased demands for electricity. People are only in the last week starting to talk about adding those costs.
Posted by: swatter on August 7, 2008 09:08 AM
Answering questions posed by the media during an election campaign is like shouting down a well. Responses never seem to sink in. The same questions are asked over and over.
Question: Won't McCain's plan to increase offshore drilling lower gas prices soon?
Answer: No. The Energy Department's own Energy Information Administration admits offshore drilling will affect gas prices only many years from now, and even then would have a negligible effect on prices.
Question: Why is that?
Answer: It takes years to get oil out of the ground, then refined and into fuel we can use. Also, don't forget that oil is a global market, so any additional oil American companies pump out of the ground merely adds to global supplies. This may slow the inevitable rise in global prices (as global demand exceeds global supply), but it won't do much of anything for us here in the US. We take the environmental risk; we share the tiny benefits with the rest of the world. The only long-term answer to our energy problem is to reduce our dependence on oil.
Question: How do we do that?
Answer: Invest in new, non-carbon energy alternatives like wind, solar, and biomass. Encourage the development of high-mileage cars. That's Obama's plan. McCain has repeatedly voted against such investments, as well as higher fuel economy standards for cars.
Question: But that will take years. What about now?
Answer: Tap the oil company's ballooning extra profits and return them to American consumers. Exxon-Mobile earned $12 billion in the first quarter of this year, far more than it ever has before -- far more than any company in history has earned. Much of that sum came directly from American consumers. They should get it back. This is what Obama is proposing .
Question: But won't this deter oil companies from exploring for more oil?
Answer. No. They're not using their windfall profits to explore for oil as it is. They're using them to buy back their shares of stock in order to raise their share prices. That's good for their shareholders and executives, not for consumers.
Question: Can we do anything else in the short term?
Answer: Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Substitute the kind of crude oil that's not in such demand right now for the kind that is. By doing this, we reduce speculation in oil, which is partly responsible for driving up the price.
Question: What's wrong with McCain's plan for a "gas-tax holiday"?
Answer: It wouldn't affect supply. It would just increase demand. So gas prices would rise and consumers will see little difference in price at the pump. More of their money will flow to the oil companies instead of to the Highway Trust Fund, whose funding is already depleted.
Question: But hasn't Obama flip-flopped on offshore drilling?
Answer: No. He's always been in favor of allowing oil companies to use the leases they already have -- a total of 68 million acres of American land and seabed that they haven't yet tapped. In fact, he's said they should use it or lose it. He just doesn't want them to have more. (But he's not an ideologue on this. He's said he'll support the current congressional compromise that allows a bit more offshore drilling for the sake of getting lots more investment in alternative carbon-free sources of energy.)
Question: So why haven't the oil companies used the leases they already have, if the land or seabed contains oil?
Answer: The oil companies want to grab as much land and seabed as they can right now, when a Republican administration is in power. The more land and seabed they can get, the more they can dress up their balance sheets to impute untapped reserves. It's an accounting game. But it's a dangerous game for America because it would give oil companies access to all sorts of land and seabed that could cause serious environmental harm if tapped.
Question: What about nuclear? Isn't that a good option?
Answer: It is if we can figure out how to store nuclear waste safely, and guard against the possibility that fissile material will fall into terrorist hands. Obama isn't against nuclear power. He just wants to make sure we can do it safely.
Posted by: Waldo on August 7, 2008 04:19 PMIf you are part of the cabal that is committed to destroying capitalism, GFY.
Posted by: Paddy on August 7, 2008 09:39 PM