frflyer

To What Extent Is Alternative Energy Performance Linked to Fossil Energy Prices?

Jack kreg
Your assumptions are based on absolute disregard for the environmental impact of continuing to do what we are doing. You remind me of what Colbert said on his TV show, (jokingly- he is a critic of the free market religion) "Can't we just let the market decide which animal species go extinct?"
His comment (joke) is only slightly more absurd than the way some free marketeers think.
Solar is already at grid parity in some parts of the country which are very sunny and also have high electric rates. Nanosolar says they can now build a utility scale solar farm cheaper than you can build a coal fired plant. And the solar farm won't ever ever need any coal, or any other fuel. No fuel ever to prospect for, mine, transport, store, refine, burn, clean up the mess from, or fight wars over. Solar industry people say we are just a few years away from grid parity. The whole country will be at grid parity by 2018 at the latest. Has it ever occurred to those of you, who think the market should be the only determinant, that we have developed our industrialized technologically advanced civilization at the expense of the earth? And has it ever occurred to you that maybe we owe the earth a little? And even if you can't make that big a stretch, maybe you can understand the meaning of sustainability. What isn't sustainable, the earth cannot support. The earth is finite, not infinite. The way we are conducting business as usual on this planet is simply not sustainable, period. If changing to sustainablility costs us a little economically, so be it. There really is no other choice, we either do things sustainably or the earth will cease to support us, period. In other words, a little sacrificing on the part of humans is not a ridiculous idea.
The amount by which we subsidize renewable energy is miniscule compared with the amount of subsidies to oil, gas,coal and nuclear. So the argument that solar and wind are losers, because they need subsidies, is absurd. According to one estimate, we now give oil and gas companies about $84 billion annually in tax credits and subsidies. We are subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world and we are subsidizing the past instead of the future.
Think nuclear is the answer? Better read "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy" www.theleaneconomyconn...
and this:
www.cleanwisconsin.org...

www.sciam.com/article....
This proposal published by Scientific American would provide a 69% solar powered grid by 2050, spending less tax dollars over the next 35 years or so than the above oil company subsidies would amount to over 5 years.
And less tax dollars than were spent to build the internet over the past 35 years. It would use less land for solar power plants, in the southwest deserts, than we now use for coal mining.
Add wind and other renewables to what we can do with solar and we will be able to phase out fossil fuels, starting with older coal plants.
While oil and solar are not presently comparable, since we only get about 1% of our electricity from oil,(which brings up the question of- why are solar stocks seen as coupled to the price of oil?) a clean electric grid could power much of our transportation with the use of PHEVs and EVs..
For more on oil and gas subsidies and the hidden costs of oil see:
www.setamericafree.org...