Things Look Bright for Renewables, But There’s a Catch
2250 megawatt coal-fired power plant
According to the American Energy Society, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for solar (large scale PV) and wind (onshore) has fallen 13% and 7% in the last year, respectively.
At the same time, we continue to pretend that the LCOE of renewables’ competitors, i.e., fossil fuels, should not include the externalities, like pollution/lung disease, climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity.
What needs to happen before our civilization starts to figure this out and demands a change? (Rhetorical question)
Craig,
Regrettably for so many “true believers” the single minded delusion of wind and solar being adequate to provide sufficient reliable energy to power energy hungry industrial societies is being shown to be an expensive delusion.
Many advocates, including yourself, fail recognize this fact in a responsible and scientific manner. Instead advocates, like yourself, choosing to double down with political or ideological arguments to try and reorganize society so the impossible can seem possible.
If it were simply a matter of more funding, or updating to better renewable technology, that would be acceptable, but alas that’s just not the case.
Worse, the Green-left, have become so fanatical in defense of their ill-conceived idea’s and erroneous beliefs they’ve forgotten the original objective !
It’s time to decide whether as environmentalists, we are striving to reduce and negate harmful emissions or win some kind of weird crusade against fossil fuel companies ?
That’s the real question.
Too much time, effort and funding has been spent on campaigning for utopian concepts that have not delivered while actively opposing more humble technologies that not only can work, but have proven to do so without disrupting the economy.
You claim:
“fossil fuels, should not include the externalities, like pollution/lung disease, climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity”
The only way that could happen is to impose a tax on those industries that use fossil fuel. Since any industrial nation who did so would immediately become noncompetitive and be forced to de-industrialize causing economic collapse, that won’t happen.
Nor would punishing one essential source of power increase the ability of other sources which lack the technical capacity necessary to meet “power on demand”.
Nor is it a question of either/or, each nation should be pursuing all alternatives equally, favoring none but implementing the most suitable for local conditions.
It remains a mystery to me why Green-Left advocates, like their equally foolish fellow travelers in Anti-Nuclear lobby, refuse to even discuss the enormous environmental advantages in new Clean(er) Technology which is rapidly developing, available and capable of being retrofitted to both for Coal and Natural Gas electricity generation facilities ?
If the object is to reduce emissions, the deployment of clean coal technology is unarguably the best, most economic and easily most effective means of reducing emissions in industrial nations.
The choice is simple, reduce emissions or continue fighting futile ideological (and illogical) political wars.
Just discussing the merits of each technology objectively, would be a useful start. Sadly, no matter how many times this challenge is issued to the Green-Left, the debate is always declined in favour of more political rhetoric.
The Green-left are not really about reducing “pollution/lung disease, climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity”, their concern about these issues is not sincere !
The green left are sincere about pursing a Quixotic disruptive campaign again their presumed enemies, using the “environment” as a covert method to achieve an ill-conceived social revolution.
Craig, here within these pages you could reverse this trend and take part in a sincere, fair and open-minded discussion as to the advantages and disadvantages of the various technologies available to reduce harmful emissions.
You could be among the first of your brethren to show truly responsible leadership in abandoning partisan politics and analyze the issues impartially and objectively.
(But I’m not holding my breath waiting……..)
We’re fortunate to have you present the real facts. Those radicals at scientific bodies like the American Energy Society, and media outlets like the WSJ simply cannot be trusted. Donald Trump alone can tell you that. All this is Fake News. Thanks for being here.
Craig,
Hmmm,… well, I suppose I should thank you for a reply, although I’m not sure why you believe hostile sarcasm promotes discussion and understanding.
Nor does your reference to scientific bodies like the American Energy Society, media outlets like the WSJ and the President, seem to contain any clarity or relevance tin relation to my request for a more objective discussion concerning the most viable technologies to achieve a commonly agreed objective.
Perhaps I’m being too harsh, if so, please forgive me. My objective is not to offend, but provoke meaningful discussion.
Your reply would appear to indicate the attitude of a political ideologue with a closed agenda. A ‘crusader’ at war with all who disagree with the doctrine of your faith, rather than an individual striving to discover practical solutions through clean(er) technology to help the environment.
I wasn’t aware the American Energy Society, or media outlets like the WSJ, had taken holy orders and become endowed with omnipotent powers of Truth and Enlightenment ?
Everyday, I sell, finance or promote investment in Clean(er) technology. I have been engaged in this activity for decades.
My motivation, (apart from making money) is to provide a more prosperous and cleaner environment for my children and grand children. long after my own demise.
I believe each generation has a responsibility to the next generation in this regard. I’m sure we are alike in our desire to do our best for our grandchildren.. (even if, like me, you find the concept of being a grandparent more than a little daunting 🙂 ).
I believe it’s very important to be inclusive on environmental issues. Self righteousness only alienates the majority of the population who may be interested in supporting a common environmental objective, but not your methods or political agenda.
We all live on the same planet. Whether you like it or not, James Hansen, Rex Tillerson, Al Gore, and President Trump all share the same planet.
Each of these men love and are proud of their children and grandchildren. Each wish to leave their children and children’s children, happy, prosperous and healthy.
We all want the same objective.
The devil is in the detail. The bitterness, conflict and negativity begins when we allow the inclusion of extraneous political agenda and narrow ideological interests when formulating environmental policy.
It’s my contention this lack of objectivity obscures our ability to focus on promoting more effective environmental outcome. Instead we foolishly fight for one technology over another, or indulge in political/ideological battles in a crusade to promote agenda largely irrelevant to the adoption of the most suitable clean technology.
Advocates who resort to personal abuse or condescending dismissal while railing against supposed “evil enemies”, are doomed to obscurity and failure. They find themselves preaching to an increasingly small cult of fellow malcontents.
Reaching out, being inclusive and promoting understanding builds bridges and promote development and progress.
That’s my point Craig, it’s only by accepting truth and accuracy, no matter how hard or how much it goes against your belief structure, is the only way forward.
We should never exalt any scientist, advocate, writer, pundit, politician, or anyone into a position of being omnipotent and infallible. It’s silly, and also discourteous to the individual who probably never sought such an exalted position. (If they did, it’s a good indication they don’t deserve such accolades).
So, I renew my invitation to discuss or debate the effectiveness of different technologies, without partisan rancor, political/ideological bias, just on the practical and most effective merit of reaching a common objective being a Clean(er) environment within a prosperous and economically stable society.
Maybe I ask too much, but I truly believe the vast majority of the population share my hope.
Craig,
I feel a little like President Trump must have felt when negotiating with Pelosi and Schumer.
It’s impossible to hold a discussion with people who are so self-righteous and supercilious in their beliefs they refuse to accept any alternate viewpoint or even discuss an view but their own should prevail.
Compromise is the art of civilizations, understanding and flexible thinking is how we learn and grow.