One of the global warming community's favorite alternative energy resources is solar energy. Since it emits no greenhouse gas, it gives alarmists a warm and fuzzy feeling. However, that feeling has affected NBC's global warming reporter Anne Thompson ability to apply basic economic principles to her stories.
According to Thompson, there are two drawbacks to solar power - 1) You're at the mercy of Mother Nature for sunlight; and 2) It's drastically more expensive than fossil-fuel electricity.
"And there is the matter of price," Thompson said. "The Electric Research Power Institute says this kind of solar power is two to four times more expensive than electricity from natural gas or coal."
But rather than allow the markets to inspire innovation to make solar a more competitive source energy, Thompson told viewers a cap-and-trade system would force carbon-based electricity to be more expensive and therefore make solar power more competitive.
"But if there is a cap on carbon emissions, [Accione Energy, NA CEO Peter] Duprey says that could change," Thompson said.
Duprey told Thompson a carbon cap would make coal plants more expensive, and that would force the cost of solar power down because it would draw more focus as an energy resource.















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"...there are two drawbacks
March 14, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Chris Norman"...there are two drawbacks to solar power - 1) You're at the mercy of Mother Nature for sunlight; and 2) It's drastically more expensive than fossil-fuel electricity."
Plus, wait and see the environmentalists' reaction to vast areas of landscape covered with those pretty solar collectors. I know they were all for wind power until they saw hill sides covered with turbines. Not to mention the proposed wind farm off Hyannis Port...
chris the animal rights activists are against wind power
March 14, 2008 - 17:50 ET by lunaticcringeradiothey try to block it at every turn because, and be ready to sigh a big aaawwwwww, bird get hit by the big propellers and get killed.
boo fraking hoo.
interestingly enough i drove right past a big wind farm between santa rosa and roswell nm this past week, guess what i didn't see littering the ground as i went 4wheelin under the towers. not one dead chopped up bird corpse. another anti capitalist group lie.
lunaticcringeradio
lunatic
March 14, 2008 - 18:02 ET by RESTLESS 1Animal rights whackos are against anything human whatsoever. They would see us all eradicated if they had their way. I just wish they would volunteer to go first, then the rest of us could reason for ouselves if that is what's best.
Don't worry Wind Power is really "Safe"
March 14, 2008 - 20:09 ET by PopularTechUnsafe - Danish Climate Minister Demands Explanation for Violent Wind Turbine Collapse (The Jutland Post, Denmark)
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Cutting edge technology PT
March 14, 2008 - 20:11 ET by acumenWind Turbines are for the birds.
Wind Turbines are "Bird Friendly"
March 14, 2008 - 21:29 ET by PopularTechYes they are...
"An estimated 44,000 birds have been killed over the past two decades by wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco"
Birds - Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (BBC)
Birds - Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (The Daily Telegraph)
Birds - Turbine Expansion Said to Threaten Birds (FOXNews)
Birds - Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (BBC)
Birds - Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (Associated Press)
Birds - Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (BBC)
Birds - Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (UPI)
Birds - Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (USA Today)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Kennedy won't let them do it, it harms the BIRDS in Cape Cod!
March 14, 2008 - 20:12 ET by PawpawNWe'll never get it in some areas because as Kennedy says " Kennedy won't let them do it, it harms the BIRDS in Cape Cod!" and he doesn't want the view disturbed from his property!
You know it ironic that the
March 15, 2008 - 11:10 ET by dscottYou know it ironic that the Kennedy's are "right" to oppose wind power but for the wrong reason. Typical wind generators only produce full power capacity between 35 to 40% of the time. http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/filter_detail.asp?itemid=686 So what about the other 55 to 60% of the time when a coal fired plant has to make up the difference. The bigger issue with wind is that you must have 100% back up capacity when the wind doesn't blow enough to produce peak capacity when you need it. In essence, the installed cost of wind power is not just the wind turbine, it is also the coal fired plant to back it up as a result wind power will NEVER be financially competitive against nuke, coal or natural gas. Solar power has exactly the same problem where a PV set up is by design sized to produce all of the electricity during a four hour period (10 to 2 p.m.). So the other 20 hours a day (4/24 = 16.7%) leaving you provide 83.3% of the remainder by conventional fired generator to run. The bottom line is no matter how developed, efficient and cheap alternative power is, it can't be the primary provider of electricity nor ever achieve any significant so called CO2 reduction. The worst part is the incompetent Democrats running Congress have done everything they can to discourage conventional power generation leading to a shortage in electricity and increasingly higher prices. At this pace the US will resemble a third world country within 10 years or so due where black outs will be common and the concept of electricity 24/7 will be a thing of the past. If anyone has been following the electric industry, you know that the growth in electric consumption rises annually and the number of planned power plants is not going to keep up with the demand.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Effects of higher energy costs
March 14, 2008 - 15:09 ET by nkviking75Funny how libs who claim to care about the middle class don't see any problem with forcing people to give up cheaper, more efficient forms of energy for expensive and impractical forms of energy. We'll all absorb higher energy bills with no problem, won't we? And of course, higher energy costs will not be a factor in the price of everything else we need like food, clothing, medicine, etc. What idiots! For the life of me, I don't get the need to abandon oil rather than look for cleaner, more efficient ways to search for oil, refine it, and use it. We've already made progress in that area, and we could probably do even better. You don't have to be crazy to be an environmentalist, but it seems to help. When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Yes, wasn't the news covered
March 14, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Chris NormanYes, wasn't the news covered last fall with reports on how people would freeze to death because of the jump in price of heating oil? Oh well, subsidies from the "wealthy" tax payers, I suppose. It doesn't matter if it's practical as long as it makes them feel good.
It's nuts
March 14, 2008 - 15:26 ET by nkviking75You're right, Chris, but somehow we're all supposed to magically pay for expensive alternative energy. I'd look for government subsidies, just like we get with ethanol. So our tax burdens will also rise.
It's just nuts.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Maybe the warm and fuzzy
March 14, 2008 - 15:33 ET by Chris NormanMaybe the warm and fuzzy feeling everyone gets from being environmentally correct will be warmth enough.
I looked into this last
March 14, 2008 - 16:24 ET by dscottI looked into this last year for my employer, $12 million with an 85 year payback to save $140k annually on a net metering plan. Can you guess the answer?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
costs
March 14, 2008 - 20:23 ET by WanderlustFunny how no one in the MSM understands the economy of solar power by PV cells:
When these so-called geniuses figure out how to make plastic out of something besides petroleum (psst, lefties, that means OIL) and increase power production so that you don't have to cover half of Martha's Vineyard just to power the Kennedy compound, then I'll be interested. Not before.
Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the
end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"
Did Duprey actually say
March 14, 2008 - 15:19 ET by mattmDid Duprey actually say that making coal plants more expensive would force the cost of solar power down?
I could see it if he said it would make it more competitive, but down? I don't think so. All I see is energy prices going up - and for absolutely no good reason.
Oh, yes, the classic leftist
March 14, 2008 - 15:20 ET by fitzfongOh, yes, the classic leftist "affordable clean energy" shell game at work again: make some irrelevant "energy source" relevant by taxing the hell out of a crucial energy source to "even the playing field". Destroy something that does work so that you can subsidize something that will never work. And this policy has been so effective before...one need only take a trip to the grocery store to see how cost effective corn subsidies and ethanol production have been. Here's a tip: they're called "unintended consequences" for a reason. "Environmentalists" are the world's parasites and are the root cause of just about every economic crisis this country faces.
Classic because it is
March 14, 2008 - 15:30 ET by NL207Classic because it is neither affordable nor clean. Witness ethanol as fuel.
Witness ethanol as fuel. -
March 14, 2008 - 16:38 ET by motherbeltWitness ethanol as fuel. - NL207
And the "Law of Unintended Consequences".......
1. Government mandates ethanol
2. Farmers plant more corn to make ethanol
3. Farmers not planting wheat because ethanol more profitable
4. Wheat supplies down, prices up.
5. Wheat shortage
The solution to this government-caused problem? Why, More Government Intervention, of course!!
Yeah, that'll work.
You neglect the other
March 14, 2008 - 16:58 ET by NL207You neglect the other negative effects of excessive corn based agriculture.
Corn is a robber crop. It is extremely hard on topsoil. More corn = more chemical fertilizers.
The cost of ethanol is not competitive with oil without a government subsidy.
Ethanol requires approximately 4 enrgy units for each 3 energy units produced.
...and, among other
March 14, 2008 - 18:09 ET by fitzfong...and, among other disastrous consequences, it shortens the supply of corn for non-fuel consumption...the corn that could be used for human consumption and cattle feed is wasted on ethanol, artificially driving up food prices across the board.
I didn't mention the other
March 14, 2008 - 19:35 ET by motherbeltI didn't mention the other things because we talked about them a couple of other times. My point here was that when government intervention creates a problem, there are idiots who think that the solution is more government intervention.
Gee, why don't we just let the government regulate the farming and pricing of all crops? After all, it worked out well for the Soviet Union....
Liberals have us in a death hold
March 14, 2008 - 15:33 ET by planetrepublicanI am not an expert whatsoever about energy in this country but I have been observing some things that might seem obvious to many of you. I think the left-wing has been driving the energy policy in the USA since Earth Day. Oil is evil, so drill absolutely nothing, anywhere, even the most remote region. Doesn't matter if we power our cars with oil and heat our houses with oil, no oil. Nuclear is evil and dangerous so don't build anymore of them, even though Europe and Japan have them and they work just fine. Jane Fonda's the China Syndrome put an end to nukes. Wind is cool, just don't build them off the coast of Mass where they can obstruct the view of the Kennedy's. And have any of you checked out what it takes to get real energy from the wind? Mighty big blades!
Solar is cool too but doesn't work where we get cloud cover, like up here in the Northeast. Did I leave any out?
Now the left is pushing Global Warming where laws will be passed to further squeeze energy and drive up costs, all in the name of (forgive my blasphemy) "junk science".
Where does that leave us? I am not a negative person and I do not like talking heads that tell us we are in for doom and gloom but our economy is heading for a train wreck. How can we function and live without cheap and plentiful energy?
At least we have irony on "our" side
March 14, 2008 - 15:38 ET by sarcasmoThey'll be making this guy rich(er)!
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
pr, If a "gov permit "gave the green light to nuk, coal, oil
March 14, 2008 - 15:52 ET by upcountrywaterIt would take 7-10 YEARS until the project is done..
Because all these projects are HUGE
New PV charge controllers are now on the market, that work on cloudy days, panels are now hooked up in series.
Just maybe one can cup their hands around a curley que bulb and warn the hands.
If next winter is colder than this one.. $200.00 /bbl. might be a deal.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Price fix
March 14, 2008 - 15:36 ET by BurgherIsn't this price fixing to eliminate copetition? Isn't this why ENRON is out of business and people are in jail?
Cap-n-Trade = Bait-n-Switch
March 14, 2008 - 15:46 ET by Sick-n-TiredCap-n-Trade = Bait-n-Switch ? just a thought...
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
McCain supports
March 14, 2008 - 15:52 ET by bigtimerMcCain supports Cap-N-Trade.
...we are screwed no matter how we look at it with the candidates we have regarding this matter.
amen Controlling carbon
March 14, 2008 - 16:01 ET by Sick-n-Tiredamen
Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
mental
March 14, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Old Europe"Mental" is in "environmentalism"....
Solar Power
March 14, 2008 - 17:16 ET by allanfI suspect that if you could cover the roof of a single family home for anything under 100K and go off the electric grid, there would be no stopping solar power.
That brings up the question that Anne never answers. Can you go off grid with that configuration and price point?
yes it is more expensive but we're getting it on our property
March 14, 2008 - 18:00 ET by lunaticcringeradioyes it will be more expensive to initially get the solar electric and solar water, but we are going to have it on our remote property mainly because we don't want to be dependant on the government. we have electric and will be tapped into the grid so we can resell it back to the state and after a while we'll eventually build a battery barn so we are entirely self-sufficient. we'll have a windmill to pump our well and solar water heaters. the whole point in doing so is not to save the planet, not to play into the global warming lie, not to make tree huggers happy, not to stick it to the utility companies, we're doing it to be a shining example of an independant conservative and so we can cut as many ties with the government as possible. frak environmentalists we're doing this for our own selfish desires. haha
ah yes the cost is high but i can cut quite a bit of it since i can do all the install myself. my own labor saves a ton.
lunaticcringeradio
I guess if you had to pay
March 14, 2008 - 20:00 ET by dscottI guess if you had to pay for the initial electric hook up from the electric company due to the remoteness, solar and wind would make sense under this scenerio. Are you going to use deep cycle marine batteries or go with the lithium ion batteries? Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Follow the money
March 14, 2008 - 22:05 ET by masslibertarianNBC wouldn't, by some strange coincidence, be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company that has an interest in promoting "alternative energy" would it?
Here is a Washington Times
March 15, 2008 - 03:05 ET by jdhawkHere is a Washington Times commentary on the IPCC study on GW. It is entitled, "COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat."
I think that you will find it interesting.
It is at this link: http://www.washingto....
Smoke, Mirrors, and Taxes
March 15, 2008 - 04:24 ET by thoridflyAll they've got is smoke and mirrors.
All these enivro-nuts and eco-militants have to offer is taxation, Robin Hood economics, and big government non-solutions.