Young Man Writes School Paper on the Cost-Effectiveness of Renewable Energy

A high school boy from Sarasota, Florida (pictured) writes:

Mr. Shields:  I am a student at Sarasota Christian School, and in my English class we are doing research topics. My research topic is alternative energy, and my question is, do you agree with that renewable energy is more cost efficient and better for the environment then nonrenewable energy. I would love to get your opinion on this,

and also any research that you would be willing to send would be great. Please contact the above address as soon as possible with your response. Thank you again for your expertise on this topic. I am looking forward to anything else you have to give to me for my research paper.

Well, my young friend, at the risk of sounding immodest, you really are talking to the right guy.  I spend the majority of my waking hours researching and writing on this.

At the highest level:

Renewable energy is far better for the environment than most conventional sources—certainly all fossil fuels.

At issue is your question about cost-effectiveness, which is quite complex.  Here are two posts that form a discussion of the subject: here and here.

The root issue here is defining the term “cost-effectiveness.”  If by it you mean that you want the lowest price per kilowatt-hour, and you don’t factor in any of the health and environmental issues, coal will be the most “cost-effective” source of energy now, and for a very long time to come.

Fortunately, few people think that way, and fewer every day.  Most people today realize that there are enormous costs associated with burning fossil fuels, especially coal, but that our society is, for a  variety of reasons, unwilling to take them into account.  The moment we say, “We need to include the cost of lung disease, climate change, and so forth in our calculations,” renewable energy becomes very inexpensive in comparison.

The links above provide a great deal more detail.

Hope this helps.