Re: [GreenYes] energy supply

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@home.com>]

To Muna's thoughtful comments I will add a suggestion that we consider 
pricing issues.
In the 24 August edition of Science magazine ('Exploiting Wind Versus Coal, 
p. 1438) researchers from Stanford demonstrate a full-pricing analysis 
where wind energy is cheaper than coal -- even with currently existing 
technologies. Social costs of coal-related illness raise the cost of coal 
energy from 3.5 - 4 cents/kWh to 5.5 - 8.3 cents kWh.  By comparison, wind 
energy costs are coming in at 3 - 4 cents kWh.

The smart money will go where no externalities loom, waiting for a class 
action suit or other cataclysm to eradicate profitability. IMHO, people who 
weigh in on these issues from an environment/public interest perspective do 
better to frame the issue on principle, since noone else is going to put 
these important points on the table.

H.


At 02:26 PM 09/26/2001 +0200, Muna Lakhani wrote:
>dschere@bgnet.bgsu.edu wrote:
> >> Developing technologies for stand-alone facilities, an important,
> > anti-terrorist strategy, is a promising path where renewable
> > technologies will have advantages they often lack in places where the
> > electic grid is the norm.
>
>agreed, although the point is not to drive this to be "anti-terrorist"
>but rather as a safe and sustainable long term option....
>
> > Countries (and special regions and places, like islands, e.g.) without
> > the burden of such infra-structures as the grid or the US transportation
> > system are places where developers of renewable technologies are gaining
> > footholds with renewable technologies.  Insightful advocates of
> > renewable technologies will ponder how to build on those cases.
>
>and more.... Germany and Denmark have committed to 50% electricity by
>wind alone, the markets for RE are growing between 25% and 45% per
>annum; even the World Bank will fund RE but will no longer fund nukes...
>I could go on.....
>
> > Yet as a recyling community, I think we have to realize, as well, that
> > US reliance on coal can change no faster than alternatives are on line
> > to take the place of coal.  With the millions of tons we burn daily,
> > that means continued reliance for a long time.  So do we want to promote
> > alternative coal technologies that avoid NOXs and capture elemental
> > sulphur as a byproduct?  I should think so.
>
>sorry - cannot agree - if a good efficiency programme was implemented
>over the next year or two, you could easily save up to 30% of current
>consumption; that will give enough breathing space to implement solid RE
>strategies... as is happening now in the US - The USA market for RE
>alone was greater than US$6 billion in 2000; Bonneville Power
>Administration, Oregon USA says they are "seeing wind power for
>California and NW as one way of ensuring stable energy provision and
>prices."; USA - renewable energy will create 350000 net jobs by 2010
>- Renewable energy will lower our fossil fuel imports, saving foreign
>exchange.; The world's largest windfarm (3000 MW) will be installed
>within one year (2001) in the USA, as well as a further 200 MW in
>California and another 260 MW in Nevada, as well as further new capacity
>in wind alone of 2000 MW."
>
>etc etc etc....
>
>the issue of capturing sulphur is a non-starter - we have been doing
>that here to some extent, mainly from fossil fuel processes, and we have
>a mountain of the stuff with no market...
>
>the argument about continuing with coal / nuclear "until RE proves
>itself" is nothing more than misinformation - RE technologies work, and
>work well - an island in Denmark is totally self sufficient in energy
>from wind; the first commercial wave power generator has gone onstream,
>and already signed a 15 year supply contract; I could go on...
>
>the answer is simple: if it is unsustainable, stop it, and stop it now -
>no more investment or subsidies for it, and it will soon come right...
>
>regards
>Muna
>
>
>******************************************
>To post to the greenyes list,
>email to: greenyes@grrn.org
>
>Subscription information for
>this list is available here:
>http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
>******************************************

******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org

Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************