EU Leak Shows Wind, Solar Energy to Double Power Bills
show comments
  • Jeff77450

    Dr. Meade, I don’t disagree with your article or conclusions, at all, but I’m genuinely curious as to how much money might be saved as a result of the reduced pollution that could result from switching to solar/wind. Pollution does x-amount of damage to health & property, not to mention the cost (to the U.S.) of maintaining a military presence in the Gulf. I’m curious as to whether it even comes close to being an even trade.

    As an aside, and you probably know this, wind-power is, in fact, solar-power since everything that we call weather is just one great big heat-exchange mechanism powered by the sun.

  • MW from Florida

    I know it’s popular to bash renewable energy these days, but it is getting an unfairly bad rap.

    Wind energy in the U.S. is not expensive. Austin Electric in Texas recently contracted for nearly 500 megawatts of wind energy at $35-45 per megawatt-hour, which is cheaper than the cost of natural gas-fired power. Solar power costs are falling rapidly.

    Nuclear power is not cheap. In fact, it is one of the most expensive sources of power. Power from a new nuclear plant costs in excess of $150 per megawatt-hour because of the massive capital costs. There is a reason why utilities aren’t building nukes unless they can get federal loan guarantees and can charge their ratepayers while the plant is still under construction.

    Natural gas is cheap and abundant due to recent advances in extracting it from shale formations. That is the best news for U.S. energy supply in decades. But if there is one thing we should have learned in the last few decades it is that you should not put all your eggs in a single basket. Natural gas looks great today, but that will probably change in the next several years. Diversity of supply is best. Much of that diversity will come from renewables.

  • Jim.

    Green ideas push prices through the roof — surprise, surprise, surprise.


    Good thoughts about wind being a matter of the sun turning the atmosphere into a heat engine.

    What’s shocking is how agonizingly *inefficient* that engine is, if you think about it.

    Picture cylindrical wind tunnel with a turbine blade stretching from edge to edge. The energy of all that wind traveling in that tunnel goes to turning the turbine blade. That’s what the turbines in coal-fired generators are like.

    Now picture that same wind tunnel with utterly minuscule toy windmills forming a thin coating on its sides. They hardly capture any of that mass of wind at all. That’s what wind farms are, compared to the motion of the air in our atmosphere driven by differential solar heating. Not efficient in the slightest.

    One thing I’m genuinely curious about, though. If you have solar panels with an efficiency of about 20% (i.e., removing 20% of the energy from the incoming sunlight that would otherwise go to heat) coating a large enough land area, would you see significant large-scale cooling of that area?

    It’s a pretty simple conservation-of-energy argument. 20% is a really big number from that point of view, particularly because solar cells (I believe) serve as pretty efficient blackbody radiators, which at night would cause more heat loss into space.

    Just curious. I wonder if anyone is both rich and curious enough to try it…

  • Rich R

    Somehow reminds me of the words of a candidate a few years back: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
    Barack Obama videotaped San Francisco Chronicle interview, January 2008.

  • Brian H

    Will not do the trick? Was this your first clue?

    Without going into the installation subsidies and externalities, buying wind output is a fool’s guessing game. You never know when it will be available, in what quantities, and must be ready to ramp some other generation up or down to accommodate.

    Only idiots rely on wind power. The world is well-supplied with those, but remember: In Nature, stupidity is the only capital crime.

  • Corlyss

    The Green Emperor has no clothes on. The spectacle of once rich and once powerful nations lining up to eviscerate their economies on Green’s demonstrable bad science and greed and desire to destroy Western prosperity in the name of some ficticious boogey man is absurd in the extreem.

    What is so awful about admitting the facts once and for all and use the squandered money to aid struggling economies or pay off insane sovereign debt? What Western governments are doing now is worse than criminal; it’s stupid.

  • LarryD
  • Brian W

    For prices to double by 2050, they would have to rise a little less than 2% per year. Hardly a nightmare scenario. If the developed and developing countries all gave up on renewables, one wonders what fossil fuel prices would do over the same period.

  • fgordon

    And the countries still using a lot of imported fossil fuels will have to compete with a (most probably) world dominating China in 2050.

    At the moment it’s still nice to be able to exchange “worthless” printed USDs for fossil fuels :D, but this will only work as long as the USD is the world currency.

    Do you really think in 2050 this will still be the case? I’m not that sure.

  • Wow, wonderful blog layout! How long have you been running a blog for? you made blogging glance easy. The whole glance of your site is excellent, let alone the content!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.