Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 15, 2011
We can’t afford subsidies for renewable energy
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculated the costs in dollars per megawatt/hour of different energy sources as follows: Conventional coal power: $100.40; Natural gas: $83.10; Nuclear: $119.00; Onshore wind power: $149.30; Offshore wind power: $191.10; Thermal solar power: $256.60, Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10.
According to the EIA, the availability, i.e. the ability to produce electricity on demand is 85 per cent for coal, 87 per cent for natural gas, 90 per cent for nuclear, but only 34 per cent to 39 per cent for wind and 21 per cent to 31 per cent for solar. For CSP Solar to produce electricity the other 74 per cent of the time requires costly thermal storage or an auxiliary fossil fuel boiler (usually a natural gas boiler that operates at about half the efficiency of a modern combine cycle natural gas turbine).
Availability is important, since capacity to produce (e.g. a wind turbines capacity) is not the same as actual production from that energy source. The above estimates of availability (production) are optimistic.
What is clear so far is that renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive than abundant energy from gas or coal. It is also more expensive than nuclear.
This is why governments, in part for environmental reasons but also so as to support a “green economy agenda”, subsidize renewable energy. Now let us look at energy subsidies:
According to an EIA study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, $23.37 per year for wind, but only 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. If renewable energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.
The argument that renewable energy is efficient is lost. The argument that renewable energy is subsidized in just the same way as other energy sources is lost – look at the scale of the difference in subsidy. The argument that remains is the impact on CO2.
Yet as we have grown our renewable energy sector in the U.S., Canada and Europe, CO2 emissions have risen.
The political willingness to support renewable energy may be peaking as politicians realize that renewable energy systems are not the answer they were looking for.
4 Comments on "We can’t afford subsidies for renewable energy"
Lampert Scratch on Wed, 15th Jun 2011 10:08 pm
The answer that we are looking for is less population and an end to the infinite-growth, money market, industrial economy.
Kenz300 on Wed, 15th Jun 2011 10:26 pm
The cost for coal, nuclear and oil keep rising while the cost for wind and solar have dropped substantially in the past 2 years and is not reflected in the report. Ongoing research and development along with increasing economies of scale are driving down the cost of wind and solar very rapidly. Nuclear cost just went thru the roof. What is the poisoned air, land, water and food in Japan worth? The cost to the Japanese economy from this nuclear disaster has not even begun to be calculated. TEPCO is essentially bankrupt and the taxpayers of Japan will be keeping them afloat for decades to come. What will it cost to store this nuclear waste forever? The costs of nuclear, coal and oil are rising very fast while the cost for wind and solar are dropping rapidly
cephalotus on Wed, 15th Jun 2011 11:51 pm
If you introduce 3-5% of photovoltaic into the grid you do not need any additional storage capacity.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/aktuelles/meldungen-2011/solaranlagen-liefern-spitzenlaststrom
DC on Thu, 16th Jun 2011 4:05 am
These numbers they quote are a complete fiction. There is absolutely NO way nuclear is subsidized $1.59 and renweables nearly $25.00. The Gazette does not allow comments or I’am sure you see them being called for this BS article. Even with lavish taxpayer support, nuclear is still too expensive by far, a fact easily researched, but here, it looks like nukes are actually pretty reasonable, at least compared to wind. The paper should remove this article.