Electricity - nuclear versus wind power
Sam Carana
US and the UK are coming to the end of their lives, triggering a debate
whether to rebuild them, or look for alternatives.
Clean and renewable energy accounted for less than one-fifth of the
world's electricity in 2003 - most of it generated by hydro-power
projects. According to the International Energy Agency, small-scale
projects (such as power generated by wind, solar, geothermal, wave,
biomass and waste) overtook nuclear power's output in 2005, without
even counting large hydro-electric projects.
Wind power accounts for most of the increase and is getting ever more
popular. Wind farms in Germany and Spain alone added as much
electricity in 2004 as the entire world's nuclear industry is expected
to add this decade (i.e. from 2000 to 2010) and many new wind farm
projects are planned.
The Westmill wind farm in Oxfordshire, England, will generate 6.5
megawatts of electricity with just five turbines. Adam Twine, who owns
the land for the farm, had no problems finding investors for the
project.
Scotland has approved a 140-turbine wind farm at Whitelee for
completion in 2009. Output will be up to 322 megawatts - enough to
power virtually all homes in Glasgow.
In Massachusetts, USA, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project will generate
over 400 megawatts of electricity - enough for 400,000 homes.
By contrast, the interest in building new nuclear power plants seems to
restricted to nations like North Korea and Iran, where possession of
nuclear weapons is glorified to bolster the nationalism and populism
that keep rogue regimes in power. And then, there are of course
emerging giants like India and China, who look at nuclear power as a
cheap way to resolve their growing energy needs. But, how cheap is
nuclear power?
Until now, advocates of nuclear power have used two arguments. They
argued that nuclear power was cheaper than alternatives and that
nuclear plants made countries less dependent on foreign suppliers of
energy such as coal, gas and oil. Recently, they have added another
argument, i.e. that nuclear power doesn't come with the emission of
harmfull gases that plague alternatives like oil, coal and gas.
The dependency argument is starting to backfire. Nuclear power requires
access to uranium and huge technical skills. There are only a handful
of consortia in the world capable of building nuclear plants. Operating
the plants requires a continuous supply of skilled staff over many
years. The simplicity of wind turbines makes them look ever more
attractive in this regard.
Costwise, wind power is also looking increasingly attractive compared
to nuclear power plants. Many cost elements of nuclear power have until
now been under-estimated, specifically the cost of security,
litigation, waste disposal, safety, cleaning, and staff training. In
the past, many cost elements, such as developing and building nuclear
power plants, building up and sustaining the technical know-how and
ensuring there is competent staff to run the plant, have been partly
hidden in scientific and military projects that aimed to give a country
access to nuclear weapons. The link between nuclear power plants and
nuclear weapons has long been a hidden argument to choose nuclear power
for countries that aspired more military power.
But increasingly, the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons
starts to count against nuclear power plants. Concern for proliferation
of nuclear weapons has increased since 9/11, as people worry more about
terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons to hold the world at
ransom. Furthermore, there is increasing concern that nuclear power
plants become targets for terrorists or that terrorists could hijack
nuclear waste to create a 'dirty' bomb.
Most western countries have ruled out nuclear power, partly for its
links with nuclear weapons. The countries with the most nuclear power
plants are the US, France and Japan, and they have ever less interest
in nuclear weapons, as modern weapons such as guided missiles with
conventional explosives can take out enemy targets with pin-point
accuracy, without the massive death of people and destruction of
infrastructure that comes with nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the biggest argument in favor of wind power is that it's clean,
renewable energy that doesn't add to the greenhouse effect or to global
warming, unlike nuclear power and burning fossil fuel. While nuclear
power doesn't come with the emissions of greenhouse gasses that make
burning of coal, gas and oil unattractive, the radio-active waste of
nuclear plants is polluting in a much more insidious way. Furthermore,
nuclear plants add heat that causes global warming, while alternatives
like solar, hydro, geothermal and wind power merely re-use energy that
was already there. As concern for global warming and climate change
increases, the latter argument adds further weight to wind power.
Ironically, while pollution clearly is one of the strongest arguments
in favor of wind power, some opponents claim that wind power created
environmental problems. According to a recent column in the Times,
Senator Kennedy, whose family's sport compound is in sight of the
proposed Cape Wind project, claimed it would cause environmental
problems. What Senator Kennedy means is that it would spoil his views.
But if you had the choice, what would you prefer, the sight of a
windmill, or of a nuclear power plant?
My conclusion is that wind power is looking increasingly attractive,
but as discussed before, we should look at many alternatives in
smaller-scale projects, rather than to put all our eggs into one
massive, centralised system.
Cheers
Sam Carana
Related threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities/browse_thread/thread/5dbe6d184241c8cb
http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/browse_thread/thread/302077ef2d146024
yuping rong
Sam Carana
That's a good point! Wind doesn't blow constantly, so it's hard to rely
solely on this way of generating electricity. Denmark faced this
problem when it experienced long periods with little wind, and we
should learn from that not to rely on wind power alone.
Wind power is best used in combination with other sources of energy. In
many places, especially where there is plenty of sunshine, solar power
is an excellent compliment, since the sun shines most during the day
when there's more demand than at night, while wind power can continue
to generate electricity at night. Wave power is also interesting, for
its continuity. Most economic is hydro-power, i.e. dams that create
lakes in rivers, as they can supply both potable water and electricity
on demand. To avoid that the water level gets too low, two lakes could
be created at different levels, i.e. the lower lake further downstream.
At times of peak demand, energy is generated by letting the water flow
down from each lake. At times of low levels of water, the water can be
pumped back from the lower lake into the upper lake, using the (excess)
electricity generated by the wind turbines at off-peak times, say at
windy nights. The greater the upper lake, the easier it will be to
spread things out to ensure continuity in supply of both water and
electricity. Water levels could further be kept high by dropping salt
and ice on nearby clouds from small airplanes, to induce rain. I
earlier discussed this in more detail at:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/browse_thread/thread/dea66030b534709c
Anyway, the conclusion is that we should have multiple sources that
generate electricity into the power grid. The one source that's hard to
combine with other soucres is nuclear power. Nuclear plants may appear
to provide all required electricity, so they are typically set up as
the sole source for a power grid. The problem with a nuclear plant is
that it is so expensive that planners are prone to set it up as the
sole supplier. Since nuclear plants are so expensive to build, operate
and maintain, and since they require a long-term commitment, it
unlikely that alternative sources are planned next to it on the same
power grid. As I said above, the cost of nuclear plants was often
underestimated in the past, which is part of the reason why wind power
is now looking increasingly attractive, compared to nuclear power.
So, it makes sense to connect multiple suppliers of energy to a power
grid. A nuclear plant may have to be shut down for maintenance from
time to time or may for some other reason (e.g. security) experience
black-outs. Apart from using multiple sources, we also need to look at
interconnection of different power grids. Interconnected power grids
can help each other out in times of peaks and trouble. Instead of
seeing a power grid as a distribution network with a single plant that
distrubutes energy to consumers, we should look at the power grid more
like an interactive network. We should look at anyone who is connected
to the grid as both a potential supplier and consumer. So, if you
consume energy, you pay the going rate for that moment. If you put
energy into the network, you get paid the going rate for that moment.
Example 1: At night (i.e. low demand) when there's a lot of wind
blowing (plenty of supply if wind turbines are connected), any supplier
will not be paid a lot. The grid merely makes a margin on top of the
price it pays for supply, so consumers will also benefit from low
rates, which will encourage people to, say, heat up their how-water
tanks at night.
Example 2: During times of peak demand, there may happen to be little
wind. In that case, it makes sense to use hydro power, as discussed
above. But if it's sunny, there may be plenty of people who have an
oversupply of electricity from their solar panels or other alternative
means of generating electricity that they can "sell back" into the
grid.
In the end, market forces can run things in the most efficient way,
which will result in the best prices for every participant. Those who
find things still too expensive can always climb onto their pushbike to
generate the electricty for their LCD screens at no cost.
In conclusion, wind power is only one piece of the puzzle, but if you
see it as I described above, i.e. in combination with hydro power and
water supply, it's a pretty large piece of the puzzle. Furthermore, the
market forces approach is important and is more effective than a single
plan that is prone to be too centralised and bureaucratic. I'm
convinced that the outcome of a market-driven energy policy will be
power grids with a multitude of suppliers providing input.
A final piece of the puzzle is litigation. To tackle all kinds of
environmental problems, we need is better litigation. Anyone who feels
harmed should be able to sue whoever they feel are responsible for
inflicting damage. That way, everyone will take better care without
need for any bureaucratic plans to be imposed from above. The problem
is that currently the biggest polluters are indemnified by
government. Lifting that indemnity is all that's needed to get the ball
rolling, in the same way that happened in regard to tabacco. I'm
convinced that, if the indemnity is lifted, investors will quickly
withdraw any funding from nuclear power projects and instead invest on
projects like wind farms, which appear a safe, clean and simple way to
generate electricity without the numerous problems associated with
nuclear power. As I said in the above post, it seems that many
investors have already drawn that conclusion, and wind power is
experiencing massive growth, in sharp contrast with nuclear power. I
just hope that China is aware of this trend.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
What is your opinion of the safety of Nuclear Power Plants form terrorists, planes, etc? Nuclear power is some of the cheapest energy produced. I recently visited Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant (TMI) and they produce electric for the PA, NJ, MD grid. This means that for the power companies to buy their power they must be able to produce it cheaper than anyone else. TMI produces 2% of the electric on that grid. The company representative that we met with did not mention any government subsidies that helped in funding the 34 year old facility. I live in South Central PA and there are three nuclear power plants two coal burning power plants and at least 4 hydro electric power facilities on the Susquehanna River. These are the power plants that I know of and there may be more.
On 4/19/07, Sam Carana <sam.c...@gmail.com > wrote:Hi Corey,You raise an important issue. This does require further discussion and we should go over all concerns and arguments, so we can take a considered position. Some argue that it would be possible to supply most if not all of our energy requirements by means of solar, wind and hydro power, or combinations thereof. Geothermal power also looks promising - if you look at Yellowstone Park, the geysers there blow the heat just out of the ground naturally. Wave and tide power could also be explored further.Coal-fired power plants may look cheaper, but this is typically the case because the cost of pollution hasn't been included in the price picture. I advocate subsidies for supply of such types of power, as they come naturally and don't add extra heat and thus don't contribute further to global warming. It is a broad mix and they also complement each other well, in the sense that solar works during the day when demand is high, while wind turbines can keep going during the night. Also, surplus power can be used to pump water at hydro-plants back up behind dams, to function as a buffer for times when there's not much wind. This, this broad mix of sources can work complimentary as well.Yes, many are advocating to allow people and businesses to feed their surplus power back into the grid, and it's already possible at many places. This will encourage people and businesses to set up their own supplies of solar or wind energy. Thus, we'll get a broad range of suppliers, which means we're not putting all our eggs into the one basket. It also means that it becomes hard for one dominant supplier to dictate terms to the grid and by implication to all of us.
Nuclear power does come with that problem, though. Nuclear power plants have a habit of dominating the power grid, thus stiffling growth and innovation in other types of power supply, in particular small contributions by, say, someone who has a surplus of solar power. If politicians decide to have a nuclear power plant somewhere, they will typically subsidize it, give it privileges, indemnities and protection, which means little or no money will instead go to solar, wind or hydro projects.This typically is a politcal decision and it's typically a choice between either a nuclear plant or alternative forms of supply such as solar, wind and hydro power. The reason for that yes or no character of nuclear power is that the costs of a nuclear power plant are so huge. It's hard to build a 'small' nuclear plant. Apart from the technical aspects making that difficult, it must also be a huge plant for safety and security reasons alone, i.e. it must be a compound that is guarded well, with walls around it, etc. It requires a lot of water for cooling. Concerns for safety and security are often left out of the cost picture, as are the cost to secure ongoing availability of staff and scientists with the technical knwoledge to asses such concerns and act on it. Security cost has been increaqsingly identified as large for nuclear plants since 9/11, but often such costs have been hidden away in military and police budgets, rather than attributed to the operational costs of the nuclear plant itself. Furthermore, operational staff require specialized training and the scientists that are needed - even at the background - require a long education history and need to be and remain experienced. This calls for special studies, typically at universities, to educate such people and such universities must keep doing so, because issues like nuclear waste aren't going to disappear soon, even if politicians decided to stop the nuclear plant from operating. Then, there's also a huge cost in dismantling the plant afterwards and all such costs are not always taken into account when comparing costs. Nuclear power receives many subsidies and privileges, and all too often they remain hidden.Some argue that, because nuclear plants don't emit much greenhouse gases, they are an attractive alternative compared to coal-fired power plants. But if we take the above into account and budget in concerns for global warming, nuclear power plants are not attractive. Nuclear power plants do add extra heat and - given that the level of carbon-dioxide isn't going to decrease soon - much of that extra heat will remain trapped in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.Instead, what I suggest is to tax supply of energy that adds extra heat. Proceeds of such a tax should be used to subsidize supply of energy that doesn't add extra heat, such as solar, wind or hydro power.I look forward to further thoughts from you on this.Cheers!Sam CaranaOn 4/20/07, Corey...@gmail.com < Corey...@gmail.com> wrote:I don't understand your point that Wind Power plants would not be
located near nuclear power plants because they are the only power
source on a power grid. I live in PA and I live close to Three Mile
Island which you might have heard about since it had the U.S.A's worst
nuclear power plant accident in 1979. But we also have other sources
of energy near by. We have a coal fired power plant, a waste fired
power plant, a hydro power plant, and we have some local industries
that produce their own electricity and sell the excess power to the
grid. Plus we have another nuclear power plant near by in the souther
part of the county that i live in.
In addition recently there was a study preformed that stated that over
60% of the United States is capable of having wind power plants. This
study looked at wind studies and the amount of wind in the area. I
know as you drive west on the PA Turnpike towards Pittsburgh on top of
one of the mountains there are wind turbines.
It will be hard to get away from nuclear power. I would rather get
rid of other sources of energy before nuclear since it contributes
less to the enhanced greenhouse effect. And the down fall with solar
power is that it is very expensive. The U.S. Air Force is building a
huge solar power farm for $100,000,000. It will take 100 years for
the farm to pay for its self and with in a 100 years i would hope that
technology would progress which would make that $100,000,000
investment obsolete.
I do not know what the answer is for our new source of energy but I do
agree that we should not put all of our eggs in one basket when it
comes to power.
On May 3 2006, 9:11 pm, "Sam Carana" < sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> That's a good point! Wind doesn't blow constantly, so it's hard to rely
> solely on this way of generating electricity. Denmark faced this
> problem when it experienced long periods with little wind, and we
> should learn from that not to rely on wind power alone.
>
> Wind power is best used in combination with other sources of energy. In
> many places, especially where there is plenty of sunshine, solar power
> is an excellent compliment, since the sun shines most during the day
> when there's more demand than at night, while wind power can continue
> to generate electricity at night. Wave power is also interesting, for
> its continuity. Most economic is hydro-power, i.e. dams that create
> lakes in rivers, as they can supply both potable water and electricity
> on demand. To avoid that the water level gets too low, two lakes could
> be created at different levels, i.e. the lower lake further downstream.
> At times of peak demand, energy is generated by letting the water flow
> down from each lake. At times of low levels of water, the water can be
> pumped back from the lower lake into the upper lake, using the (excess)
> electricity generated by the wind turbines at off-peak times, say at
> windy nights. The greater the upper lake, the easier it will be to
> spread things out to ensure continuity in supply of both water and
> electricity. Water levels could further be kept high by dropping salt
> and ice on nearby clouds from small airplanes, to induce rain. I
> earlier discussed this in more detail at: http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/browse_thread/thread/. ..
Sam Carana
Do you understand the logistical challenges that would come from allowing each and every customer to be able to choose how their power was produced. The way the grid works today is that power is made and it all goes to the grid and is purchased by the electrical companies who we then purchase our electric from. It would almost be impossible to re-structure the grid so that nuclear power had a grid, hydro had its own, and so on.
There are also hidden costs with solar power. To produce such large amounts of power the our society demands large portions of land must be consumed to be able to support a solar farm large enough. In addition everyone in this country is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Currently they are planing to install wind turbines of the cost of MA. This project may be shot down because on Senator Kennedy is also a NIMBY. The wind turbines would be of the cost of his ocean front property and he is not excited about having his view obscured by a wind farm.
Do you feel that a plane would be able to crash into a nuclear reactor and cause a nuclear explosion or a leak? Do you feel that another accident would be able to occur, similar to that at TMI in 1979?As of now nuclear power is the most reliable energy source. it produces more energy with less material and less waste.
Nuclear power is a clean way of producing energy and does not add to the enhanced global warming effect.
Do you understand the logistical challenges that would come from allowing each and every customer to be able to choose how their power was produced. The way the grid works today is that power is made and it all goes to the grid and is purchased by the electrical companies who we then purchase our electric from. It would almost be impossible to re-structure the grid so that nuclear power had a grid, hydro had its own, and so on.
There are also hidden costs with solar power. To produce such large amounts of power the our society demands large portions of land must be consumed to be able to support a solar farm large enough. In addition everyone in this country is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Currently they are planing to install wind turbines of the cost of MA. This project may be shot down because on Senator Kennedy is also a NIMBY. The wind turbines would be of the cost of his ocean front property and he is not excited about having his view obscured by a wind farm.
Do you feel that a plane would be able to crash into a nuclear reactor and cause a nuclear explosion or a leak? Do you feel that another accident would be able to occur, similar to that at TMI in 1979?
As of now nuclear power is the most reliable energy source. it produces more energy with less material and less waste.
I do not feel that they will have any trouble finding skilled employees to run the plant or the control panel. During my visit to TMI we saw the control panel simulator where we observed their students who train for eight years before they are even allowed in the real control panel. These students are the brights minds that come out of college and study everyday learning about nuclear power and the control panel. They are continuously tested and when they are in the real control room they are tested every week to ensure that they know what each and every button does. The students being trained are paid $80,000 to train. This is an incredible amount of money to train and to learn.
During a summer blackout in Chicago where 20 people died due the heat a few years back the president of AmerGen; the company that owns and operates TMI, stated that he would never let this happen during the summer months. He realizes the importance of energy and has vowed never to let his power plants to go off line during the summer months. The blackout was caused by excessively high temperatures and power plants being scheduled to be off line during peak loading days.
I feel that Nuclear power is safe and every source of power has some cost, hidden or exposed they are there. Hydro power on rivers can pose threat to migratory fish and many times fish taxis are built. These fish taxis are very expensive to build and add to the cost. Our society has a great need for energy and we must produce this energy. I would like to see this energy produced in a clean and safe manner. Nuclear power is a clean way of producing energy and does not add to the enhanced global warming effect.
I do not know the answers to the insurance questions that you have asked. I am letting you know this so it does not look as if I am avoiding your question. I also do not know the cost of security for TMI but there was a security drill last week and the report on the performance of the security personal will be released in a few weeks and I will try to find the report.
Sam Carana
third of three reports into the causes, consequences and mitigation of
global warming in Thailand this week. It's position is that the Arctic
could be ice-free in summer by the latter part of the 21st century.
However, research conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for
Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado's National Snow
and Ice Data Center, demonstrates that the 18 models on which the IPCC
has based its current recommendations could already be out of date --
the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC's
worst case scenario.
The IPCC simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5% per decade
from 1953 to 2006, with a worst case loss of 5.4%. The above
scientists discovered that the actual average September ice loss is
already 7.8%, while the rate of deterioration is accelerating, topping
9% per decade since 1979. It seems that the IPCC simulations have not
fully take into account the impact of increased levels of carbon
dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, the researchers believe.
The findings were released on April 30, at:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, "Sam Carana" <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . . .
Sam Carana
multitude of sources, among which hydroelectric power should play a
big role. The Great Lakes, which contain 20 percent of the world's
fresh surface water, already generate a lot of electrcity as the water
naturally flows down from a higher to a lower lake. We should consider
supplementing this by using lakes to store excess power. Excess
electricity generated by solar (on sunny days) or by the wind turbines
(at windy nights) could be used to pump water back from the lower
lakes to higher lakes. The result is continuity in supply of
electricity, which can easily be adjusted to demand.
At other places, dams in rivers could similarly create several lakes
that could be used both for water supply and to generate hydro power.
Excess power from solar and wind could be used to pump water back into
the higher lakes.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
> > > > <http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/browse_thread/thread/>
Sam Carana
explain, a tax of 10% can not only be very effective, it can even be
more than sufficient.
Many argue that clean and renewable energy like solar, geothermal and
wind power is twice to three times as expensive as burning coal and
therefore is not competitive. Of course, one can doubt such figures
and point out that they don't include the cost of pollution (if one
can put a price on that), but for argument's sake, let's use a cost
picture in which electricity from a source like solar power was three
times as expensive compared to electricity from a coal-fired power
plant. At first glance, it may seem like a tax of even 100% on burning
coal wouldn't be able to bridge that gap. But if the proceeds of such
a tax were used to subsidize solar power, there would be no price
difference, since a policy that taxes pollution and gives the money to
suppliers of clean and renewable energy is doubly effective. But does
that mean we need a tax that doubles the price of electricity?
Let's look at how things would work out in practice. The policy I
propose is even more effective because proceeds are used locally,
where change is needed most. If most power in an area is generated by
coal-fired plants, then a huge amount of tax will be raised in that
area, even if the tax rate was a mere 10%. If all that money was used
to subsidize a proportionally small supply of clean and renewable
energy, then such supply could theoretically be given away for free
and suppliers would still make huge profits, due to the subsidies. In
other words, market mechanisms will achieve immediate impact and the
sooner business steps in to make profits, the higher their profits
will be. It will be a gold-rush!
Of course, as the share of fossil fuel decreases, total tax proceeds
will be affected accordingly, while subsidies will have to be spread
over a larger base of many suppliers of geothermal, solar and wind-
based energy. But does that mean that we would have to increase the
tax beyond 10%? One reason why an increase will not be necessary is
that the cost of renewable energy is expected to fall dramatically. As
an example, take the following study. The cost of producing solar
power will fall to that of coal-fired electricity by the end of the
decade, according to a study by Europe's Photon Consulting into the
cost of solar power production using photovoltaic crystalline cells.
The study predicts that by 2010 solar power will be produced at a cost
of 10-12 cents per kilowatt hour in Spain, about the same as the local
cost of producing electricity from coal. In southern Germany, it will
fall to 18 cents/kWh, below the current power grid consumer price of
20 cents/kWh for the first time. In California, costs are expected to
fall to 13 cents per kWh. Across OECD countries, solar electricity
will cost less to produce than the consumer electricity price for half
of all residential consumers.
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=645
Cost of renewables is expected to fall as economies of scale are
reached in their production, retail and installation. Furthermore,
innovation and greater efficiencies will keep reducing the cost of
renewables as technologies mature. By contrast, the cost of oil is
only likely to rise as resources are depleting and as people are less
prepared to accept the consequences of oil dependency, in terms of
environmental impact, national debt and political and military
conflict. Yes, there still is plenty of coal, but right now coal is
also the most polluting form of energy. Therefore, if the tax rate of
10% needed to be increased, we could start increasing the most
polluting fuel first. But we could consider all that later. I mean, it
should not stop us from introducing a 10% tax now!
There's another reason why we wouldn't have to raise the tax beyond
10%. Many people like the financial prospect of selling power to the
electrical grid. Also, many will install solar panels just to achieve
more independence from the grid, to avoid blackouts and as a safeguard
against future price increases. Or, they may just see solar power as a
way to improve the standing of their business. Cost isn't the only
consideration - many are prepared to do the right thing for the
environment and many feel patriotic about solar power as a way to
decrease dependency on oil from the Middle East. In other words, the
10% tax will go a long way and we wouldn't have to increase this rate
as long as the conversion to clean and renewable energy will proceed
at the fast pace I expect it to take off, even with a relatively low
tax rate of 10%.
One final twist. Once the share of fossil fuel has decreased
dramatically, there will be few tax revenues left to subsidize clean
and renewable energy. That's good! It would mean that we've solved the
problem. It also means that the tax revenues cannot be used for other
purposes. If taxes were used to fill the government's coffers,
politicians would be inclined to keep the fossil fuel suppliers going,
just so they could get their hands on further tax money for all kinds
of purposes. In this case, it would be a good thing if the tax
revenues disappeared altogether, although the tax framework would
probably need to remain in place as a warning to suppliers not to
revert to burning fossil fuel.
In conclusion, I propose a 10% tax on greenhouse gas emissions with
the proceeds used to subsidize commercial supply of clean and
renewable energy. The tax will be leveied on the supply of fossil fuel-
based energy, i.e. the electricity grid will have to pay that tax if
it sources its electricity from oil, gas or coal-fired plants, while
fuel stations would similarly have to pay the 10% tax if they buy
fossil fuel. I expect that this will increase the share of clean and
renewable energy to 20% long before the year 2020, which gives us
years to consider all the alternatives for their merits, impact and
effectiveness. The one thing we should avoid is having politicians
postpone taking action and appoint committee after committee to study
things further, or wait for a carbon trading framework to emerge or
whatever scheme one could wait for next. Let's act now!
See also the discussions at:
http://groups.google.com/group/greenhouseeffect/msg/471355920b4f1c66
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977030740
I'd love to get comments on this!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
intermittent, they could also be complemented with power stored in
cars. As an example, cars could be charged with electricity at peak
production times (sunny, windy days), to send back electricity into
the grid at times when demand is high and supply is low. Differential
pricing could make this more attractive.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fullneed.jpg
Once you've had a closer look at this image, you'll agree that my above sentence needs rephrasing from "how much surface" into "how little surface". In fact, solar power can well provide enough energy for both our current electricity needs and can supply the additional energy needs to run our cars as well. Indeed, cars need not be bad from an environmental perspective. In fact, the combination can be a winner for both.
- Acceleration : 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds
- Top Speed : Over 130 mph
- Range : up to 250 miles on one single charge
- Recharge cost: as little a $2.50 in electricity for a full recharge
- Full Charge : As short as 3.5 hours with an EVSE system installed (operating at 70 amps)
http://teslamotors.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDjSbWTJbdo
Google still uses plug-in hybrids, but it sets a trend away from using fossil fuel. There are also ethanol-electric hybrid cars; more than a year ago, Saab (General Motors Swedish car unit) already showcased such a car, combining an electric motor with an E85 Ethanol engine.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/23/afx2616065.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/16/