Understanding the Merits of Renewable Energy as Civilization Edges Closer to a Precipice

Senior energy analyst Glenn Doty wrote the following to a commenter who challenged the validity of renewable energy from a financial perspective and referred to those of us who are concerned about climate change as “alarmists.” It’s so solid and concise that I thought I’d reproduce it here, and then comment on it below.

First, every MWh of coal-sourced energy that is abated saves society hundreds of dollars in health care costs, O&M costs, and of course climate change mitigation (by far the lowest of those three).  Every MWh of natural gas energy that is abated saves society nearly a hundred dollars in health care costs and climate change mitigation.

For wind power, and in some instances solar power, society gets more back out of the install than it costs just by abating the pollution externalities that are dumped onto the commons by fossil fuels even before climate change is considered.

Pretending that renewable energy is somehow a strangle on the economy due to install costs is a farce.  Granted, there are fraudulent technologies out there, but by and large anything we spend on efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, and in most cases geothermal is more than cost justified just by the abatement of costs that we are already burdened with.

Second, there’s nothing alarmist about worrying over a 50-100 year timeframe.  That’s “responsibility”, not “alarmism”.  There is also no doubt that within the next century an extraordinary amount of change will have to be accommodated, and that will result in widespread suffering and incredible costs.

Third, birdstrikes are not very common, and are not a big deal.  Batstrikes are far more common, but bats are rodents.  There is not ever going to be a sufficient number of batstrikes to impact the bat population, that is set by local food resources or major pesticide disbursement – as is always the case with rodents.

I can only add that the externalities of fossil fuel extraction and consumption are almost never considered in evaluating the merits of clean energy.  This can only be construed as a deliberate attempt to discredit renewables and support the status quo.  As an example, we all have lungs, and it’s pretty clear that there is a cost to repairing them when they are damaged.  It’s really not that hard to understand.

I have a similar reaction to the word “alarmist,” i.e., that it’s just another attempt to apply a pejorative term to those of us who are concerned about an enormous threat to our civilization, the full extent and exact time-frame of which no one currently knows.  I would also argue that the early effects of climate change are perceptible right now; there is no reason to wait 50 – 100 years when the effects, if left unchecked, will very probably be catastrophic.

The issue with birdstrikes is largely about raptors, some of which are endangered.  Though there is currently no solution that works in 100% of cases, the industry is evolving technology that improves the situation here with each passing year.  Here’s what I reported from the American Wind Energy Association conference a few weeks ago. Pretty impressive, IMO.