10 Energy Myths Exposed: Solar, Wind, Nuclear and More
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA 
on 12. 3.08
Image credit:Getty Images
From Solar to Nuclear, Energy Myths Explored
We’re all about myth busting here at TreeHugger – from Matthew’s trashing of 5 dire green myths earlier today, to John’s classic post deconstructing the wind turbines kill birds argument. But we’re not the only ones who can play that game – Chris Goodall over at The Guardian is tackling the 10 big energy myths, and while some of it will be popular with our readers – there are a few positions in there that may raise some treehugging eyebrows too.
First up are some big and familiar themes. Goodall nixes the idea that solar power is too expensive straight off the bat – pointing out that efficiency is improving all the time, and solar thermal is already cost competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the world. (In fact some predict solar costs could plummet by as much as 40% in the coming years!) He also gives little weight to the argument that wind power is too unreliable , explaining that smarter grids could easily help balance supply and demand, and move energy across larger areas (smart fridges anyone?). Nuclear power doesn’t score too highly in the analysis either – with the new Olkiluoto plant in Finland’s spiraling costs being cited as an example of the commercial risks involved. So far so treehuggery – and the author’s take on electric cars, micro-combined heat and power (CHP), marine energy are all unlikely to stir up much controversy here.
However, a couple of sacred cows of environmentalism also come under the spotlight. Goodall questions, for example, whether organic agriculture can really help feed the world – arguing that yields are only just over half what can be produced through other methods, and with meat consumption, biofuels demand and populations rising, organics will need to step up to the plate if it is to be part of the solution. Of course I would argue that we need to both tackle rising meat consumption andimprove the yields of organic agriculture and decrease the impacts of conventional farming if we are to achieve sustainability – fortunately there are plenty of ideas to help us on our way without reaching for the pesticides just yet, from vegetarian and low meat diets to urban aquaponics to wireless soil sensors. And of course agrichar, which Goodall is a big supporter of, offers great opportunities to increase yields while producing energy and also sequestering carbon in our soils.
The UK government’s much trumpeted support of ‘zero carbon homes’ is also unlikely to yield the desired results if Goodall is to be believed – costs are simply too high and the turnover of housing stock simply too slow – instead Goodall suggests money would be better spent on aggressive retrofits of existing stock, and tighter, though not as extreme, energy requirements on new stock. While he may be right that zero carbon homes can’t be the whole answer – surely pushing the bleeding edge of what is possible in new housing stock will also help us develop alternatives for retrofits – driving down costs of materials and knowhow as the industry moves towards sustainability.
Inevitably, any roundup article like this will provide scant room for discussion of the gray areas either for or against a particular myth – so its hard not to come away with an “electric cars good, organics bad” view, that both simplifies the issues, and undoubtedly Goodall’s own position on these things. But it is certainly good to see critical thinking going on into all aspects of sustainability – we can’t afford not to question both the myths of the naysayers, and also the technologies and methodologies we find ourselves supporting. The stakes are just too high.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 5 Reuses for Altoid Tins
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
- 7 Great Weekend Solar Power Projects
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- How to Use a Solar Cooker: What Works and What Doesn't
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
re: Solar power
ONe recent example
Under the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement, MMA Renewable Ventures, who own the panels, is leasing the land at no cost and Nellis is agreeing to buy the power for 20 years at about 2.2 cents/kWh, instead of the 9 cents they are paying to Nevada Power, saving the Air Force $1 million each year.
None of the $100 million cost came from the Air Force, but instead from subsidizing taxpayers and Nevada Power customers who are paying for the RPS credits
Alternate energy to date, including nukes, require expensive subsidy.
Perhaps the new micro-CHP plants could provide a place to start.
Regarding the skepticism of organic agrictulture:
wasn't there a UN report earlier this year that stated that over one half of all food produced goes to waste? World hunger is not a problem of production, it is a problem of distribution.
Although the article is fairly well written it has lot’s of qualifying statements some of which are forward looking some of which are not. Most of what Chris has written I agree with odd that he gives solar a forward looking break “…claims that its products will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations by 2012.” But not nuclear, new nuclear plants use recycled fuel, reducing the amount of fuel being stored and don’t use nuclear bomb making material, considerations that he does not account for even though he gives solar a break. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against solar, I believe CSP is cost competitive now when built in the right region.
DN
Good to see Goodall knocking the cost of solar as an obstacle for people to go solar in their homes. Solar technology is improving and becoming more efficient every day. Like all technology, the better performing solar becomes, the more consumers will benefit from it.
While alternative energies are all great, there is still a manufacturing process to consider. Just like a diet, there's no point in having that greasy pizza and washing it down with a diet coke.
While solar is still pretty much financially out of reach for most people to use in their homes, solar hot water systems, heater pipes etc are all great ideas that are cheaper. The Australian government recently announced a cashback offer on certain hotwater systems. The cashback worked out to be the same price as the system, thus getting it for free..... if you apply to the strict policy they stated.
While removing the policy would probably be a positive thing and give everyone regardless of financial status the opportunity to be that little bit greener, it still doesn't change the fact that people aren't made aware of these things in the first place unless they're inclined to look it up themselves.
Just like in the financial market, you never put all your eggs in the one basket. I think the best energy alternative will be to diversify the sources with combinations of wind (if you have the area), solar (if it's affordable) or nuclear (if it's not so controversial).
SteveC
In addition to expanding the grid capabilities to help in distribution of wind energy resources, perhaps a more widely distributed network of energy collection sites could be used with kites developed in the Netherlands (rather than the wind turbines to generate electricity.) The kites fly higher than the wind turbines and therefore can take advantage of faster wind velocities in more locations.
http://www.greendaily.com/2008/08/08/giant-kites-could-power-100-000-homes/
Below is a email response when I asked Gwyneth Cravens, author of Power to save the World what she thought of the Nuclear Power Myth...
" Hi--
The anti-nuclear Treehugger article is not looking at the big picture.
The Finns ordered concrete for their new plant delivered from India. It was substandard. That was a big setback. It's not reasonable to generalize from the two examples cited that nuclear power overall is costly. Nuclear plants are expensive to build--more expensive than natural gas power plants, for example. But because uranium is a cheap fuel relative to gas, a well-run plant can become profitable in about 8 years, having paid for itself. And the electricity from such a plant is sold more cheaply than electricity from a gas-fired plant. The fleet of existing American commercial reactors is always being upgraded and they operate on average at 90% capacity. No other power-provider can make that claim. These plants long ago paid off their start-up costs so they are referred to in the industry as "cash machines". The present shortage of materials--steel, concrete, etc.--is driving up the cost of all new energy projects. A 1000-megawatt wind farm requires ten times more steel and concrete than a 1000-megawatt wind farm and also has to have backup power because its average capacity will be about 30%. And that nuclear plant takes up less than 1/3 of a square mile, and that wind farm takes up 150-200 square miles.
If you include external costs when you look at different electricity sources, then nuclear again comes out ahead, because its impacts on public health and the environment are much smaller than those of coal and natural gas.
Then there are all the terrible costs of catastrophic global warming, to which electricity generation is a huge contributor. Nuclear power's life cycle carbon emissions are equivalent to or lower than wind power's.
In the US our choices of base-load electricity are quite limited: nuclear and coal plus some natural gas. Nuclear power is more efficient and far lower in greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. Plus fine particulates from coal kill 24,000 Americans a year. And there have been no deaths to the public from commercial nuclear plants in their entire history in the US. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart disease caused by coal combustion. Factor those costs in and you have to conclude, as the EU did in its ExternE report, that nuclear power is cheaper, safer, and cleaner than the alternatives."
With best wishes,
Gwyneth
-------
Author's comment:
Thanks for posting this BJ. I hope my post didn't come across as "anti0nuclear" - I'd say my personal position is closer to nuclear agnostic (with an admitted dose of scepticism, combined with a cultural bias). I was merely trying to communicate the argument presented in the original Guardian piece.