A new study from the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, argues that using solar and wind energy may be the most expensive alternatives to carbon-based electricity generation, even though they require no expenditures for fuel.
The paper, by economist Charles Frank, compares the benefits and costs of renewable energy. The benefits range from the lack of emissions to the savings in expenditures for fuels. The costs include the construction and maintenance of these plants, and the drop in power generated when winds are calm or the Sun doesn’t shine.
Frank’s conclusion: Wind and solar power cost far more than anyone expected.
The paper examined four kinds of carbon-free energy – solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear – as well as low-carbon gas generation, and compared them with generators that burn fossil fuels. It also posited a value of $50 per metric ton of reduced carbon emissions and $16 per million BTUs of gas.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
6 comments:
Our technology is evolving too fast for our own good.If an energy generating source could be built,made fully operational by current standards and then left the heck alone for 5 years it might be economically viable.Anything other than routine maintenance should not be allowed.I can't even buy a cell phone that won't be obsolete in a month.If current technology cannot suffice for at least 5 years it's no good to any of us.
European countries are giving up on wind and solar because it costs too much in subsidies. They have finally "seen the light". Common sense prevails.
When will we ever see all the wasted tax dollars in this country. It costs a small fortune to continue down this "green" path of foolishness. The EPA and all their little followers and church members are so very deceived. They continue to want to control and manipulate our citizens. So sad we have to pay for their ignorance.
The idea that technology will make "green" energy useful is bs. Windmills have been around for 2000 years to pump water and over 100 years to generate electricity. Pumping water works because you store the water. It is impractical for electric generation because you can't store much.
The problem is that wind is that it is intermittent and requires a large area to generate much power. The laws of physics are still in play no matter what the "greens" want.
When your entire economy revolves around spending as much money as you can in order to secure another loan it makes perfect sense.
Expensive solutions were exactly what the government wanted. It boosted our GDP. It also diverts lots o money into the pockets of the already rich investors with little risk.
Well, I was going to comment, but the first 4 commenters make the only point to be made.
Thanks for being so accurate!
Just one more point, because wind require 100% backup, CO2 emissions are not reduced.
Post a Comment