Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Renewable Energy is cheaper than coal (?)

Mr. Overwater sends this link (without, I should note, making any claims it is right or wrong. Just thought KPC would be interested, and KPC is interested. KPC is clearly trying to be like Herman Cain, and refer to KPC in the third person. Or maybe Herman Cain wants to achieve the deserved obscurity that KPC achieved long ago? Either way, here is an excerpt from the Google site):

In 2007 we launched our Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal (RE lt C) initiative through as an effort to drive down the cost of renewable energy. We’ve retired this initiative and continue to support renewable energy in a variety of other ways.

Our approach to RE cheaper than C
Through RE lt C, we made several investments in companies working on potentially breakthrough technologies. For instance, we invested in companies like Brightsource Energy and eSolar to help expand their work on concentrating solar power technology, and in Potter Drilling to advance its innovative geothermal drilling technology. We also sponsored research to develop the first Geothermal Map of the US, helping better understand the potential for geothermal energy to provide renewable power that’s always available. And we’ve had an engineering team working to improve a type of concentrating solar power technology called the solar power tower.

Being a broken record is repetitive, by definition. But the fact is that facts have shown over and over that it is a fact that RE gt C, in fact. Wishing it weren't so is just a giant waste of resources.

As proved by the fact that all of the enormous amount money wasted on wind power has gotten us nothing but a bunch of big towers, sort of an exercise machine for giants to hang dirty clothes on.

Overall, there is one simple truth: if it requires a subsidy to compete, it's NOT CHEAPER! Conversely if it IS cheaper, then it does not require a subsidy to compete.

And the wind cries.....wasteful! Here is some background, for you nuke-haters. In the US, perhaps 100 workers, and more than 30 citizen/bystanders, have been KILLED by wind turbines breaking or malfunctioning.

At Chappaquidick, one innocent person died.

At Three Mile Island, and in fact the total for all US nuclear power operations, cumulatively? That would be zero.

So, a lot more people are killed every year by wind turbines than have died, total, from nuclear power.


Tom said...

Point granted on fatalities from operation of nuclear power (in the U.S. anyhow). Count me as a nuclear power enthusiast... just as soon as that industry gives up its own subsidies. Three such subsidies are reported over at Cato by Taylor and Nayak. Also count $billions more in research directed by the world's worst venture capitalists, the U.S. Congress.

nates said...

Relatively uninformed economist trying to get into factual arguments over energy is usually a recipe for failblogging.

Anonymous said...

Where's the part where it's actually cheaper?

Shawn said...

nates; could've just been this line: "if it requires a subsidy to compete, it's NOT CHEAPER!"

pretty much unfailable.

Don Blankenship said...

In addition to the environmental benefits, we see renewable energy as a .We believe that by powering the web with renewable energy, we're creating a better .Google pays more for clean energy than it would for power off the grid to eventually make money as conventional power becomes more expensive over time.
Don Blankenship