Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Green power isn't enough
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Manley C. Butler Jr.
Butler, is the president of Butler Parachute Systems Group Inc. in Roanoke.
The op-ed "Time to end our reliance on coal" (Sept. 8), implies by omission that wind and solar-power do not receive government subsidies even as most other types of electric power generation do. Nothing could be further from the truth as can be illustrated right here in our own backyard by the tax subsidies to be provided to the Allegheny Highlands Wind Power Project.
This is obviously a case when one must read between the lines of writers Pam Solo and Grant Smith to discover their real message: It's OK to take your money (and lie about it) as long as it is for a green cause. Just so you won't have to read between the lines here, I am a firm believer in renewable sources of energy from any source for any use.
Specifically, electric power is by far the most versatile form of energy known to mankind. It can be used to power everything from wristwatches to electric cars to subways. But the fact remains that the cost of building a plant to generate electricity by any means on the scale required to power the grid is staggering at billions of dollars.
If Solo and Smith will fess-up to the economics, they must acknowledge that either the customers (directly and indirectly) or the taxpayers (indirectly) will end up paying in one way or another for the power our society uses. There are no other sources.
Because the U.S. is way behind in the construction of all large-scale forms of electric power generation, we must build at least two new multi-megawatt (probably nuclear) plants every decade from now into the foreseeable future. This will allow us to keep up with ever-increasing demand and gradually reduce our dependence on coal and foreign oil to generate electric power.
The enormous capital expenditure required for any type of power plant is a secondary issue. This is a classic opportunity for moderate-yield, long-term, high-grade bonds guaranteed by the U.S. government. You can bet that Wall Street will back these plants if they can earn a reasonable rate of return and if they have some assurance that the environmentalist extremists are not going to be able to shut them down on a moment's notice. Of course, thanks to Obamanomics, with this cap and trade nonsense, all of us (at least in the U.S.) will end up paying more for everything we buy.
I am a fan of wind power, but it must be used in areas where it makes economic sense. The Alleghenies don't qualify. Furthermore, I am a proponent of other systems that don't seem to get much press; particularly ocean floor and/or subsurface generator systems using the perpetual motion of the waves, tides and currents to power underwater windmills.
Furthermore, I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, which, except for waste heat, is literally free of emissions during routine day-to-day operations. There have been no new nuclear plants begun in the United States in decades and this sad situation occurs primarily because of the environmental issues (quite manageable except for the political aspects).
Solo and Smith have conveniently ignored that 70 percent of the electric power in France comes from nuclear power plants. If the French have solved the problems then I have no doubt that we can do it better. The disposal problems are overstated, because much of the waste can be re-refined and re-used, as is done in France.
I would like to suggest that The Times do the research, then present the data, to show the cost per kilowatt-hour for investment and operation, as well as the subsidies, tax or otherwise, provided.
This first set of numbers could be determined with a fair degree of accuracy for each of the major classes of electric power generation. I will grant that the environmental impact costs are substantially higher for coal and perhaps so for nuclear power.
I know that real numbers do not exist but The Times should also make an attempt at determining the costs for cleanup for each class.
Of course this data is subject to gross manipulation by the individual presenting the data, so please use plenty of footnotes with sources and opinions.
I look forward to seeing your research in the near future.
