Are renewable sources expensive?

Question

Are renewable sources expensive?

Answer 1

Expensive initially to set up, cheap to run over time.

Answer 2

I recently watched a piece on 20/20 on the production of ethanol, a fuel source that came from corn. What I heard was surprising. People found out that it was not only more costly but actually more damaging to the environment to cultivate corn for fuel. It would use a lot of land, not be cost effective, and even more expensive than petroleum. I'm not a supporter of big oil I just think we have a long way before we find cheap renewable energy.

Answer 3

If we examine how much it costs to produce and deliver electricity using conventional sources in comparison to renewable sources, the simple answer is yes, renewable sources are expensive.

However, this does not truly address the problem.

Water power is now considered a conventional source, but it is in fact, renewable. Direct use of water power (as in the old mills) is not very efficient in most cases, but it is certainly inexpensive. When water is converted to electricity, as is done in the Tennessee Valley and in the Pacific Northwest, it is often the least expensive component of the power grid. On the other hand, such costs seldom take into consideration the full environmental cost of such a project. Furthermore, in the United States, there are few rivers left that can be profitably dammed.

A large amount of our electricity is produced by dry cells, i.e. batteries. We find them in portable computers, cell phones, ipods, cameras, flashlights, and any number of other electrical and electronic devices. Batteries provide electricity at a very high cost, and they cause particular problems of disposal--they have lots of toxic wastes. In many cases, solar power may be less expensive. We have already seen that many pocket calculators are solar powered because this is a cheaper form of providing power. Solar cells aften require a back-up battery.

Another area where solar power or wind power can be inexpensive is in remote areas where there is no existing power grid. It can cost a lot to extend a power grid many miles through forests or across a desert or the tundra. Therefore, remote outposts may find it cheaper to produce solar or wind power for their own use than to hook up to a power grid. In some cases, gasoline or diesel-powered generators may be cheaper.

Yet another factor to consider with the cost of conventional power is military. To the extent that the First Gulf War or the present War in Iraq, or any other armed conflict is fought over oil or natural gas, the true costs of these items should reflect the cost of war. We know that the War in Iraq was not about WMBs, and it is debatable about how much it is about democracy. If we add the cost of the War in Iraq to the cost of producing oil, we would find that solar, wind, or other renewable sources are not only affordable, but cheap. When you turn your air conditioner to 68º, ask yourself if it was worth the life of an American soldier or a couple of Iraqi children.

And what about biofuels? The governments of the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia are particularly interested in promoting this renewable resource. What is the real cost, if it drives up food prices and people in the Third World starve? What will happen if tropical forests are cleared so we can plant palm trees, soybeans, or sugar cane? What are the true costs of biofuels? Less CO2 emissions (maybe).

Answer 4

It depends.  Here's a brief (partial) list of how the main ones stack up right now:

>ethanol, biodeisal: Alittle more expensive, but otherwise practical.  Not likely to drop much in cost relative to fossil fuels.

>Wind: Expensive to install, cheap to operate

>Hydrogen fuel cells--Expensive and not yet commercially feasible--but a promising technology in the long term.

>solar: Fairly expensive to install, very low operating costs (will pay for itself in time, then actually save money).  Costs are falling and will almost certainly be the cheapest form of energy around within 10 years.  If someone comes up with a cost effective power storage (battery) system, it may well be the primary energy source worldwide by mid-century.

And there is a LOT o f serious money going into this--$3.5 billion in Silicon Vally alone this year--up from $1.5 billion the year before.

Answer 5

Always interesting to real other answers and observe the misinformation some people palm off as fact. The answers for this qu. contain quite a few truths and quite a few misconceptions, a good mix.

Renewables are free. When was the last time you paid for sunlight, wind, waves?

As mentioned it is the cost of conversion into more useful  forms of energy that has a cost. And as has been mentioned the real costs depend on how you do the sums. When you buy a tank full of petrol, are you paying for the environmental damage caused in extracting the iol? in converting it to fuel? or even the damage you are doing by releasing the products of combustion into the atmosphere? Generally economists ignore these factors and so we end up actually underpricing fossil fuels in comparison to their real costs. What about the lost potential as fossil fuels are an incredibly rich source of chemicals intrinsically more valuble as raw materials in the chemical industry than as fuel.

By their nature the cost of using renewable sources of energy usually include a greater % of the "other" costs, so they look more expensive. Even then, as has also been mentioned, in certain situations they are way cheaper to us than fossil fuels.

Domestic solar hot water heaters are a real cost saver, the technology is cheap, effective and low tech.

Close to where I live several communities have started using coconut oil for fuel as it saves them money. Indeed as they own the coconuts, they only pay with a bit of labour.

Hydro projects are renewable energy providers and as mentioned very economic by any reckoning. There are not so many dam sites left, but the run of the river system application of hydro power is not yet well established. These schemes use a minor diversion dam to divert some of the water into a tunnel or viaduct until it can be returned to the river lower down the valley after passing through a turbine. These schemes have a lower ecological footprint than the traditional schemes, but the down side is they do not include a storage component for variable river flow. Excellent for adding to down stream of existing storage based systems. Mini and micro hydro systems are further options.

Wind and wave power systems are begining to be competative.

Bio fuels contary to one persons answer and contary to 20/20 are effective and can be competative. For starters it is not necessary to compete with food production. A considerable qty of bio fuels can be obtained from agricultural waste and from industrial/domestic waste.

Then there are large areas of arable land where fuel crops could be grown without serious evironmental impact. Far from creating starvation, a strong bio fuel industry would assist development in the poorest countries as there are bio fuel crops that can be grown well on marginal land without further degrading it.  It would provide cash cropping oportunities where none now exist. The fuel is a relatively stable high value product that is easily brought to market.

A remote farmer as no way of selling vegetables if the journey to market is 2 days donkey ride. The vegies would all be rotten. But bio fuel can be stored and carried to market whenever.

Sure it is possible to stuff up, but if you try hard you can with anything. Exxon Valdees ring a bell?

And you ask a typical High teck Western farmer to plant bio fuels they will as likely as not consume more energy in the process then they grow, but that is just their way of doing things. (fertilizer, insect spraying, ploughing, harvesting etc etc. ) It does not have to be that way.

2 large bio fuel plantations (casava) are being planned in my neighbourhood using Chinese capital, for fuel export to China. Several others are in various stages of establishment around this country. Some people obviously have done their sums and figured there is money in it.

Answer 6

Where ther's a will, there's a way. If we want to make renewable resources cheap and feasable, we can.  But, if we don't try we won't.

Answer 7

This depends upon your definition of renewable.

If you take renewable to be something that can be replaced or renewed, then oil falls into this category although it does take a long time. Perversely, wind and solar do not, as you are using these and not replacing them, the sun will eventually burn out.

Some things are good ideas, like running your heating pipes through a solar heat exchanger along your roof to preheat them using the sunlight. Whilst the sun is slowly burning out, you are not making it burn out any faster.

Photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that they are mainly a waste.

The concept of converting agricultural land used to feed us into a source of corn for ethanol is so frightening, there is only enough food available to feed the present global population. Turning this over to non food production is a disaster.

Beware of politicians looking for quick fixes, they are often harmful in the long term. Most politicians only look as far ahead as the next election.

Answer 8

hp and Heinz are

Answer 9

renewable energy sources are free, eg wind, wave, rainfall, sunshine.

it is the cost of conververting them into forms we require that can be expensive.

so converting sunlight to electric via photovoltaics are expensive; heating water in a recycled radiator is cheap.

or, building a wind trubine on land is cheap, offshore expensive.

but ultimatly it depends how economists work out the sums.  If the recent UK gov report into the costs of climate change are factored in then burning fossil fuels are far more expensive

Answer 10

Compared to the death of our planet? I don't think so.

Answer 11

There not "expensive" but there more expensive than coal or oil energy, but in the long run it probably will be cheaper when you don't have to pay for such high medical bills when you 90!