As long as the sky is free, renewable energy will never beat fossil fuels. Agree? Disagree?

Question

From a Time Magazine Article.

Answer 1

Both agree and disagree actually.

It is true that the costs of environmental destruction by industry has rarely made it to the balance sheet and therefore cheap but polluting technologies have an unfair advantage over green technologies ... basically because nature has no means to "pay us in dollars" to protect it.

BUT ...

Fossil fuels are a non renewable resource which is running out.  Rarity of oil alone will make alternatives more feasible.  As green technologies are developed to maturity their price will come down, as fossil fuel reserves are exhausted their price will go up.  ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN forms of renewable energy will soon reach the tipping point where they are cheaper than oil.

In the meantime energy conservation is the most effective method of economic advantage for the individual.

Answer 2

No.  If the sky is free, solar is free.  A very large percentage of our heating and cooling costs (and the fossil fuel use) could be skipped with mandatory passive solar building design.  Solar water heating can replace most water heater and pool heater use (had it on my last house).  Much of our electricity generation could be replaced with micro solar installations at homes and businesses (payback of 30-40 years now, but tha would drop if the market expands).

Fossil fuels are never free, and they're getting more expensive.

"The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions."

Baloney. There always has been a charge on carbon emissions.  For cars it currently ranges from $0.50 to $4 to $12/gallon, depending upon where you live.  Cost alone has nover constrained release.  

So the logic sounds reasonable, but it doesn't hold up in the real world.  Global population growth and development are what got us to this point; fighting rises in those two factors would be close to free.

Answer 3

definitely I agree.

Answer 4

The Question is not clear except to yourself...because of what you are thinking.

I will get you to look at many of the ANSWERS to other Questions to get an idea of what is going on in this tricky subject.

Answer 5

What does "free Sky" have to do with your question? And who says that fossil fuels are not renewable, I mean the earth produced them once, why couldn't this be an ongoing process?

Answer 6

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "free sky" you mean that there is no cost to putting carbon emissions back into the sky.  The concept at play is risk displacement.

I've railed against the fact that when people look at the "cost" of  products they buy, they are looking ONLY at the purchase price, not at the cost to the environment or the toll on human life living at risk because of pollution.

This risk displacement is a major feature of our economy.  The real long term costs are hidden and passed off to a different community or even a different generation.

In some countries, people work all day for enough to pay for a cot and a bowl of rice in the evening.  The goods they make come to the local WalMart or Target, and are sold for less than anything similar made in the US.  As long as consumers see the  "cost" of the good as purchase price, they are able to ignore the human toll.

It's the exact same with carbon emissions.   As long as no one is paying for the right to "store" carbons and other pollutants in the free and open sky, then that cost is passed off to the future.  The emissions may be happening in a factory in Malaysia, but the EFFECTS of those emissions will be felt world wide as the climate changes.

I haven't read the article, but will when time allows.

Answer 7

Huh?

Answer 8

We have already been charged and taxed for the emission of fossilized fuel and now people are suggesting that we be charged and taxed for not emitting fossilized fuel. So, whichever blue print we want to use, we have to pay and pay and pay.

Answer 9

What you say is quite true.

Fossil fuels are categorized under non-renewable resources as they take too long to make new fossil fuels. Therefore, most renewable resources comes from the atmosphere, such as wind and flowing water.

Therefore, aas long as our atmosphere or 'sky' is free and clean, renewable energy is a better choice than fossil fuels.

Answer 10

people have to get used to the fact that there is no 'away' to chuck their 'waste'. the full costs of fossil fuels have to be paid for by the polluters.

the cap and trade system has been a joke so far, what would you expect from the preferred option of big business. i would rather see a proper cap based on national population, reducing every year.

Answer 11

EH?

All energy comes from the sun. Fossil fuels are just stores of the sun's energy. There is so much misunderstanding about this issue it is tragic. We need to change the way we think towards processes and systems that support all life including humanity. We need to move away from the idea that 'economic growth' is progress and beneficial.

This is a conceptual problem which should have nothing to do with monetary costs until implemented. The only 'currencies' we have to calculate are:

1. The health, 'wealth' of the world.

2. The interdependence of all within that world.

3. Energy.

Taking point 3 'Energy' first:

a) The First Law of Thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Energy is neither created or destroyed. The energy entering the system must be accounted for either as being stored there or as flowing out.

b) Second Law of Thermodynamics: the law of degradation of energy. In all processes some of the energy loses its ability to do work and is degraded in quality. The tendency of potential energy to be used up and degraded is described as entropy, which is a measure of disorder which always increases in real processes.

Points 1 & 2

1. The health, 'wealth' of the world.

2. The interdependence of all within that world.

What is important to human (and everything else) well-being is not analyzable in economic terms.

Browse Odum's ecosystem approach

He uses energy as a currency to compare and quantify the whole spectrum of natural and man-made elements and processes.

The answer is not a simple one, but conservation, renewable energy (energy collected directly from the sun) and re-design along with Energy Descent Action Plans are the only ways forward.

A key Permaculture principle is catch and store energy (directly) for example plant trees which store energy that can be later released as fuel. We can do this on a local level or a national one. But really what we should be looking at globally are Energy Descent Action Plans. Browse Permaculture Transition Towns.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransT...

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransT...

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Curren...

Answer 12

I agree to an extent. You cant make the same amount of money on solar energy compared to fossil fuels when the sun keeps rising every day.

You cant control the main source of the energy/fuel as you can with oil. It so easy for a oil company to slow or stop production all they have to do is stop pumping. What other energy gives you that kind of control over profits?  

   For the knucklehead that said something about fossil fuels being renewable that the earth made it once why cant it do it again. That took millions of years a lot of plant life  and dead dinosaurs to do that. I would not call that renewable.

  I do believe that with gas prices where they are at and climbing that the oil companies are there own worst enemy and will force individuals and companies to invest in alternate means of energy.

In the past the investment for people or business hasn't been worth it not the case now. Oil prices effect the cost of everything.  It all boils down to money and control. Where theres money theres control where theres control theres money.

Answer 13

This country uses 22 million barrels a day Amy, ethanol at its best is only 60% efficient relative to oil. Do you think we can grow 30 million barrels of moonshine a day? If you do, does that mean that agricultural runoff of these renewables into the rivers, bays and oceans are free? No, nuclear fission is our only hope, wind power at it's best could only deliver 20% of our electrical needs.

Answer 14

The title implies that it's free to pollute the air.  You can't pollute the air for free as industries are bound by environmental regulations which get more stringent every year.

Renewable energy will eventually become cheaper than fossil fuels when they start to run out or for some other reason become very expensive.

We can change to renewable energy now if consumers don't mind paying 10 times as much for energy (I think most of us mind).

Answer 15

I have an idea: why don't we try and make renewables more efficient and cost effective so they can compete with fossil fuels, rather than forcing oil prices up to make renewables seem like a good idea. The latter forces the price of everything up while leaving the poor in the dust, and our infrastructure in shambles.

I wonder if the environmentalists know how much damage they have really done...