Does it seem that people focusing on alternate energy don't look at a cost-benefit comparison?

Question

There is a lot of talk about getting off of dependence on oil. Though gas prices are going up, it is still not as expensive as what is payed in Europe. But, alternate energies come at a cost, too. Electric cars would save all sorts of gas, great. But we aren't building any more power plants - no one wants one by them. So, limited amount of electricity means more outages and higher bills. How much will the increased electric bill be vs the higher gas bills?

Ethanol...less CO2 emissions, yeah (of course nitrogen based emissions are higher..and worse for the environment). As people are just discovering, there is only so much farmland. Every acre of farmland used for ethanol is one less for food (can we say food shortages or higher prices). Not to mention, how much energy is used creating the ethanol?

I am not saying that we shouldn't try to have alternatives. I am saying people need to take off the rose-colored glasses and make a realistic comparison.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

My thoughts - it shouldnt be about the money.

We should all take the responsibility to reduce our use of energy. And produce our own as much as possible. Including growing food instead of lawns and concrete and decking.

If people are happy to have satellite dishes on the fronts of their homes why not put a small wind turbine?

Walk more, cycle more, use public transport more.

Slow down our pace of life, give other people more thought and want less material and so called luxuries.

Answer 2

You are correct that the problem is difficult and the solutions seem less than ideal.

However, it's a matter of national security to get off foreign oil. We can't afford to be held hostage to the likes of the Saudis because we need their oil.

Most people think about cost/benefit contrasts in going green. This is why most people still haven't converted to solar power; the initial outlay is large. However that could change very shortly due to the fact that chemists have discovered how to roll solar panels out in plastic sheets, which are much more flexible than silicon panels and a whole lot cheaper. Tidal power is being used, and it seems to have no ill effects on anything - it's invisible as the dynamos are underwater. There is also an unlimited amount of geo-thermal energy to be tapped into; it's expensive to dig the wells deep enough, but the process once it gets going needs little maintenance and this is very very clean energy.

Both Popular Science magazine and Popular Mechanics do a good job of reporting about breakthroughs in technology in this area.

Answer 3

Obviously not or there would be no need for government subsidies or mandates.

Answer 4

If the cost-benefit formulas were based on environmental impact, it would be good. Basing them on money alone is futile because the supposed "market forces" are easily manipulated. As to agricultural practices, the farm subsidy system in USA is a joke, it rewards rich people many of whom don't even farm at the expense of poorer farmers here and in third world countries.

I don't think there are any easy answers, but for sure greed-driven policies have to go.

Answer 5

Alternative energy is something we should all be looking into to reduce our consumption of our earth's natural resources.  

You are right, there comes a time when alternative energies are not cost efficient.  We can only invest in so much research and development before we are loosing money and money that can be better spent in other places.  Oil is underpriced relative to the cost of carbon emissions.  The market is obviously not going to solve these problems without some government intervention.  I say we should tax the heck out of oil and invest in other research and development (and Im not talking about ethanol).

Unfortunately, our current administration has decided that ethanol is the way for Americans to reduce their dependency on oil.  Who are these people kidding?  As the asker states above, this is not very efficient way of correcting the problem.  We can further see this at the supermarket where our grocery bills are climbing as well as energy costs.  Corn is in everything at the supermarket, from all the prepackaged foods, to the boxes they come in to the walls of the store that the goods are sold in.  (There is a book about the US being a corn nation, but I forget the name of it or who it is written by)  We are already a nation fueled with corn.  

The end result is that demand for resources has soared.  If supplies don't keep pace, prices are likely to climb further, economic growth in rich and poor nations alike could suffer, and some fear violent conflicts could ensue.  (The next big thing we need to take a serious look at is water.  As there are no substitutes for water, and no easy alternatives to simple conservation)

The world has the ability to adjust to dwindling oil production by becoming more energy efficient and by moving (dare I say) to nuclear, and to wind and solar power (solar being my favorite).  Unfortunately, these transitions are very slow and costly.

Answer 6

I think that one of the reasons for the big struggle of using ethanol from corn, and having grain prices go up since corn is being used as high fructose corn syrup (unnecessarily) in foods. I have not investigated this idea, nor have I backed it up. It just seems to make sense to me that if cereal companies and food companies take the unnecessary corn additives out, then there would be more corn to use for ethanol, and less of a need to increase prices.

I also don't mind spending a bit more to save Mother Earth.