It depends on what you mean by sustainable. Solar and on-shore wind certainly have the capacity to become a cost-competitive source of power, but they do not have the ability to become the sole source of power in the near future. They are too unreliable and too reliant on the weather.
Nuclear is reliable safe and can be inexpensive. BUT it can only be inexpensive if we can get the greeners to stop spreading scare-mongering lies about nuclear. Having a protest at every construction site and fighting community zoning at every possible site makes construction extremely expensive.
Hydro is inexpensive, but once again the greeners like to protest hydrodams.
Geothermal is inexpensive, but once again greeners like to protest geothermal plants.
Wind is inexpensive but unreliable, plus it needs proper placement. Placing wind farms in non-windy locations is not cost effective. Placing off-shore is extremely expensive. Also greeners tend to protest the bird strikes.
Starting to notice a pattern???
Locke actually insults the people who want to be "off the grid" as if they are the ones stopping cleaner forms of energy. They are not. In fact, conservatives tend to want lower taxes (common sense) and the cheapest form of fuel (common sense). I don't know a conservative who would not want solar if solar were the cheapest.
Trevor,
I don't buy that crap at all. You all talk of fuel subsidies, but are never honest about what you mean by fuel subsidies.
Tax credits? EVERY company in the US writes-off the amount spent on R&D and production. In the US, you get taxed on profit. If we changes this, then every company in teh US would quickly go under. That is not a subsidies.
What about the money spent for helping low-income families reduce their heating bills??? You want to get rid of this "subsidy"??? Is it really a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry, because it is counted as one.
How about strategic petroleum reserve??? The US government buys oil and stores it for cases of emergencies to stop oil shortages, like the ones that had Americans waiting in lines for hours and hours to fill up their gas tanks??? Is that a subsidy??? It sure is listed as one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource...
And this I love for those liberals out there.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter to President Obama that stated in part: “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.”
So in the midst of all of the global warming Kerry is saying we have had one of the "most brutal winters in history" AND while he costly talks about fuel subsidies being a horrible horrible thing and how much money the fuel industry gets in subsidies, he defends what is listed as a fuel subsidy!!!
Liars, extremists and nutcases can be found on both sides.
MAN MADE Climate Change destroys ALL LIFE. Mike
Whatever it is across the board all things should be created equally. The left wants to punish success with taxes and the right rewards success with lower taxes. To me a subsidie is when the government gives someone money for nothing, politicians like to claim taking less money from someone is a subsidie.
Level the playing field and it would be easy to determine, however, in a liberals idea of leveling is punishing success and lowering the bar.
If you take away all subsidies from both the conventional and alternative sources, then alternative fuels become some of the more financially viable energy sources.
The US Department of Energy has calculated future generating costs on a “total system levelised cost basis”. This means the cost per megawatt-hour without any form of subsidies or tax credits and taking into consideration the costs of construction, operating, maintenance, materials etc.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/ele...
The costs are as follows, the trend shows how costs are expected to change:
Geothermal - $47.90. Trend =
Natural Gas Advanced Cycle without carbon capture - $64.40. Trend ↑
Natural Gas Conventional Cycle without carbon capture - $66.30. Trend ↑
Onshore Wind - $80.30. Trend ↓
Hydro - ￡84.50. Trend =
Natural Gas Advanced Cycle with carbon capture - $91.30. Trend ↑
Coal - $95.60. Trend ↑
Nuclear - $96.10. Trend ↑
Biomass - $102.60. Trend ↓
Natural Gas Advanced Turbine - $103.80. Trend ↑
Coal Gassification without carbon capture - $115.90. Trend ↑
Natural Gas Conventional Turbine - $128.40. Trend ↑
Solar Photovoltaic - $130.00. Trend =
Coal Gassification with Carbon Capture - $147.40. Trend ↑
Offshore Wind - $204.10. Trend ↓
Solar Thermal - $243.10. Trend ↓
The article you linked to is in respect of Australia. Here are the past costs of electricity generation in Aus, figures are Australian dollars per megawatt-hour. Please note that these figures come from the RWI Institute for Economic Research, as opposed to a molecular biologist and kids TV show presenter.
Gas without CCS – A$45.50
Hydro – A$55.00
Wind A$63.00
Coal – A$64.50
Nuclear – A$72.50
Gas with CCS – A$73.00
Solar – A$85.00
Biomass – A$88.00
Fracking – A$89.00
Photovoltaics – A$120.00
The reality is that both the fossil fuel and conventional fuel industries receive large subsidies, take away all subsidies and it’s gas, onshore wind, hydro and geothermal that are the most cost efficient.
NopeI could have solely ripped off alarmists with these green energy scams.
Yes.
Normal homes run off them. Radical right conspiracy theorists everywhere have gone off grid and become self sufficient due to fear of an economic collapse. Ironically solving the very environmental and economic issues that would have led to such a collapse. Even more ironically using permaculture earthships biotecture and natural building methods often attributed to radical environmentalists.
These same nuts built and have run impossibly clean and efficient (not joking) wood fired carbon neutral automobiles. "Wood gasifier" trucks not only smoked (no pun intended) ele trick and other alternative fuel vehicles, they were the only vehicle to drive to the competition not arrive by trailer towed by conventional automobile.
No the subsidies and funding given to non-renewable energy means that renewable energies can not "survive" without effective government assistance. Our local coal power plant has required government assistance at least twice in the 10 years that I have lived here (and depends on large foreign buyouts to remain viable).
Could circumvent subsidies to an extent by regulations, e.g. all new homes have to have solar panels (or the like). This would increase demand and supply, which would drive prices down. In Australia they did the silly policy of rebates for those on lower incomes installing solar panels. Would have been much smarter to offer rebates to those on higher incomes, as they could afford them and this would have also driven prices down.
In time they will, as fossil fuels become more expensive, either through government meddling or through natural market forces. The argument we have is mostly a question of whether to let the free markets decide when renewable energy's time has come or whether to force it by artificially inflating the cost of fossil fuels with carbon taxes.
Nope. Wind and solar farms are expensive to build, expensive to maintain and are very inefficient. If there was some way that I could have solely ripped off alarmists with these green energy scams I would have done it also. The sad part is that it is mainly the middle class and poor (alarmists and skeptics) that has to pay for these scams.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/97-percent-of-australian-renewables-investment-dries-up-without-subsidies-so-the-abc-gives-free-adverts-to-the-industry/
