Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable–and Free?

By Roy Cordato -- January 5, 2016

“It is time to stop referring to solar power as ‘renewable’ or ‘free.’ The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges foisted upon taxpayers and utility customers.”

“… it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to [fossil fuels].”

The answers to the two title questions are, except in the most trivial sense, no and no.

Renewable?

Solar energy is said to be renewable because, as one source puts it, it is “naturally replenished.” Or as another source states slightly differently, solar power is renewable because “there is an endless supply.” But the truth of the matter is that in any meaningful technological, economic, or practical sense, solar is anything but renewable.

For any BTU of usable energy generated by the sun, it is highly unlikely that, as it is used, it will be, or even can be renewed by another BTU of energy also generated by the sun. This is because (unlike the claim above that “there is an endless supply” of solar power), on any given day there is a very finite supply and, on some days, no supply at all of sunlight that is usable for conversion to electricity.

The extent to which a megawatt of electricity that is generated by solar power can be actually renewed by another megawatt of electricity that is also generated by solar power is completely dependent on the time of day that the electricity is used to light a lamp, run an air conditioner, or heat a hot water tank. If I generate electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my house at 2:00 in the afternoon to run my air conditioner, to renew that used electricity at 6:00 PM to cook my dinner would be impossible.

In fact, I would have to turn to an entirely different source of energy, one whose renewability does not depend on whether or not the sun is shining, like coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.  It is meaningless to refer to an energy source as “renewable” if it can’t be renewed as needed. If my solar energy does not allow me to renew the electricity that I use at 4:00 pm until 10:00 am the following morning, in what practical sense can that energy source be called renewable?  The answer is none.

Of course this is not only true for the household with panels on its roof but also of solar generated electricity being put onto the electrical grid, and for all the same reasons. It seems to be a dead give away that there is not “an endless supply” of an energy source or that it is not “naturally replenished” if for most hours of any given day it needs back up generation from a supposedly non-renewable conventional energy source.

Indeed, in a practical or even meaningful technological sense, which is the truly renewable energy source (i.e. that which is renewable on command for the purpose of generating electricity) the sun or coal or natural gas?  Clearly it must be the latter two. In fact it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to these other sources.

A “Free” Source of Electricity?

So what does this imply for the claim that the sun is a “free” source of energy? If the word free refers to price in the economic sense then the claim is misleading at best. The price of the sun as an energy source is completely bifurcated. Energy from the sun has two prices, zero and infinity. On a clear day at noon it’s free, and on that same day at midnight it’s infinite.

That is, it cannot be obtained at any price. The same is true for sunny vs cloudy days. It is typically argued that on average, given that many days will be cloudy with no “usable sun” at all, a solar-based power plant can generate electricity for about five hours. This means that for an average of 19 hours out of every day the price of solar as a usable energy source is infinity.

Of course it’s also important to note that we’re only talking about the price of the fuel source, i.e. sunlight as opposed to “non renewables” like coal or gas. But the entire apparatus that gets us to the point where we can use sunlight as a fuel source to generate electricity is itself quite expensive.

The fact that the sun isn’t around a whole lot to take advantage of that apparatus means that the very high fixed costs of solar installations can be considered productive over a relatively small percentage of any given day and therefore have to be “levelized” over an equally small amount of actual electricity output. This is why there is a very highlevelized cost of electricity from solar power compared to other sources. Usable solar power is never “free” even during the short periods when the fuel source is.

Conclusion

It is time to stop referring to solar power as “renewable” or “free.” The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges are foisted upon tax payers and utility customers.

———

Roy Cordato (Ph.D, economics: George Mason University) is vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable–and Free?

By Roy Cordato -- January 5, 2016

“It is time to stop referring to solar power as ‘renewable’ or ‘free.’ The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges foisted upon taxpayers and utility customers.”

“… it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to [fossil fuels].”

The answers to the two title questions are, except in the most trivial sense, no and no.

Renewable?

Solar energy is said to be renewable because, as one source puts it, it is “naturally replenished.” Or as another source states slightly differently, solar power is renewable because “there is an endless supply.” But the truth of the matter is that in any meaningful technological, economic, or practical sense, solar is anything but renewable.

For any BTU of usable energy generated by the sun, it is highly unlikely that, as it is used, it will be, or even can be renewed by another BTU of energy also generated by the sun. This is because (unlike the claim above that “there is an endless supply” of solar power), on any given day there is a very finite supply and, on some days, no supply at all of sunlight that is usable for conversion to electricity.

The extent to which a megawatt of electricity that is generated by solar power can be actually renewed by another megawatt of electricity that is also generated by solar power is completely dependent on the time of day that the electricity is used to light a lamp, run an air conditioner, or heat a hot water tank. If I generate electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my house at 2:00 in the afternoon to run my air conditioner, to renew that used electricity at 6:00 PM to cook my dinner would be impossible.

In fact, I would have to turn to an entirely different source of energy, one whose renewability does not depend on whether or not the sun is shining, like coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.  It is meaningless to refer to an energy source as “renewable” if it can’t be renewed as needed. If my solar energy does not allow me to renew the electricity that I use at 4:00 pm until 10:00 am the following morning, in what practical sense can that energy source be called renewable?  The answer is none.

Of course this is not only true for the household with panels on its roof but also of solar generated electricity being put onto the electrical grid, and for all the same reasons. It seems to be a dead give away that there is not “an endless supply” of an energy source or that it is not “naturally replenished” if for most hours of any given day it needs back up generation from a supposedly non-renewable conventional energy source.

Indeed, in a practical or even meaningful technological sense, which is the truly renewable energy source (i.e. that which is renewable on command for the purpose of generating electricity) the sun or coal or natural gas?  Clearly it must be the latter two. In fact it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to these other sources.

A “Free” Source of Electricity?

So what does this imply for the claim that the sun is a “free” source of energy? If the word free refers to price in the economic sense then the claim is misleading at best. The price of the sun as an energy source is completely bifurcated. Energy from the sun has two prices, zero and infinity. On a clear day at noon it’s free, and on that same day at midnight it’s infinite.

That is, it cannot be obtained at any price. The same is true for sunny vs cloudy days. It is typically argued that on average, given that many days will be cloudy with no “usable sun” at all, a solar-based power plant can generate electricity for about five hours. This means that for an average of 19 hours out of every day the price of solar as a usable energy source is infinity.

Of course it’s also important to note that we’re only talking about the price of the fuel source, i.e. sunlight as opposed to “non renewables” like coal or gas. But the entire apparatus that gets us to the point where we can use sunlight as a fuel source to generate electricity is itself quite expensive.

The fact that the sun isn’t around a whole lot to take advantage of that apparatus means that the very high fixed costs of solar installations can be considered productive over a relatively small percentage of any given day and therefore have to be “levelized” over an equally small amount of actual electricity output. This is why there is a very highlevelized cost of electricity from solar power compared to other sources. Usable solar power is never “free” even during the short periods when the fuel source is.

Conclusion

It is time to stop referring to solar power as “renewable” or “free.” The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges are foisted upon tax payers and utility customers.

———

Roy Cordato (Ph.D, economics: George Mason University) is vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Articles: The Purpose of Government

Articles: The Purpose of Government

January 2, 2016

The Purpose of Government

By Bruce Walker

In the midst of a rancorous presidential nominating season, when we are bombarded every day with promises by politicians about how they will create jobs or educate our children better or get the economy rolling again, few if any candidates seem to grasp the purpose of government in America.  The purpose of government is to preserve liberty. 

That would include protecting us from foreign enemies who seek to take our freedom and from people who come into our nation illegally, either as illegal immigrants or as terrorists.  Protecting the legal integrity of our borders and our citizenship is an aspect of protecting American liberty.  Nothing matters, though, if liberty first is not preserved.

Listen, then, to the next Republican debate.  What are the candidates talking about?  Who will create the most jobs, who will jump-start the economy, who will improve our educational system.  We do not need government, especially the federal government, for any of that.  The economy hums along just fine without politicians.  Jobs are created when people work and not when the Bureau of Labor Statistics captures data for dreary and dull reports.

Do we need government to educate us?  We need government less than at any time in human history to educate us.  There are a hundred different ways for children these days to learn to read and write, and once children are literate, there is a limitless universe of knowledge that eager and willing minds can pump to become truly and magnificently educated.  Indeed, it is incomparably better for de-institutionalized willing minds to learn to keep learning than to earn a diploma, which implies entitlement or merit when often it means nothing at all.

Liberty, though, is quite different.  It is the very air free minds need to survive.  It is the soil in which wealth grows.  There is no substitute for liberty, no government program that can simulate liberty, no regulation that can mandate liberty.  It cannot be bought, and it ought not be sold. 

When our Declaration of Independence states that it is to preserve liberty that governments are formed by men, and when the Preamble to our Constitution states that the reason for this experiment in federalism is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity," that is the heart of what America is, or what it was founded to be.

Expanding liberty would a worthwhile goal for discussion in a presidential election year.  Devolving power to individuals and to state governments, which lack the sort of monopoly the federal government possesses in its continental reach, is surely worth talking about.  What might be some practical ways of accomplishing this goal?

Restore to individuals and to businesses that are not inextricably linked to government the right to discriminate.  The right to discriminate is at the heart of freedom.  What if a particular variety of discrimination seems wrong to us?  Then we, personally, should not do it.  We might also tell businesses that if they want our trade, we will consider when and how they discriminate.  But stop making federal judges and government bureaucrats the arbitrators of good and bad discrimination.  Let markets and individual consciences do that.

Abolish as many federal offices and agencies as possible.  This does not mean that the function performed by that agency is not a proper role of government, but rather that it is not the proper role of a national government.  Government operations close to the people, that compete within states or among states for taxpayers, businesses, and homeowners, cannot trample liberties recklessly. 

Finally, consider giving teeth to the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, all about liberty.  It is from beginning to end a statement of what the federal government may not do, to us or to the governments of the states.  The Second Amendment, for example, is about preserving our individual right of self-protection.  We need to stop apologizing for exercising that right. 

The Ninth Amendment is not about allowing abortion on demand.  Hear the words of that amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The italicized words show an intention to limit federal judicial power, which was also seen as a threat to liberty.

The sad fact, of course, is that we live in a land full of people more afraid of the responsibilities of freedom than the blessings of freedom.  Until we re-learn the purpose of government in our land, the problems we have in politics will remain intractable and politics largely an exercise in futility.

America is about liberty, and with liberty, despite the dolts who hold or seek elective office, our nation will do just fine.

In the midst of a rancorous presidential nominating season, when we are bombarded every day with promises by politicians about how they will create jobs or educate our children better or get the economy rolling again, few if any candidates seem to grasp the purpose of government in America.  The purpose of government is to preserve liberty. 

That would include protecting us from foreign enemies who seek to take our freedom and from people who come into our nation illegally, either as illegal immigrants or as terrorists.  Protecting the legal integrity of our borders and our citizenship is an aspect of protecting American liberty.  Nothing matters, though, if liberty first is not preserved.

Listen, then, to the next Republican debate.  What are the candidates talking about?  Who will create the most jobs, who will jump-start the economy, who will improve our educational system.  We do not need government, especially the federal government, for any of that.  The economy hums along just fine without politicians.  Jobs are created when people work and not when the Bureau of Labor Statistics captures data for dreary and dull reports.

Do we need government to educate us?  We need government less than at any time in human history to educate us.  There are a hundred different ways for children these days to learn to read and write, and once children are literate, there is a limitless universe of knowledge that eager and willing minds can pump to become truly and magnificently educated.  Indeed, it is incomparably better for de-institutionalized willing minds to learn to keep learning than to earn a diploma, which implies entitlement or merit when often it means nothing at all.

Liberty, though, is quite different.  It is the very air free minds need to survive.  It is the soil in which wealth grows.  There is no substitute for liberty, no government program that can simulate liberty, no regulation that can mandate liberty.  It cannot be bought, and it ought not be sold. 

When our Declaration of Independence states that it is to preserve liberty that governments are formed by men, and when the Preamble to our Constitution states that the reason for this experiment in federalism is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity," that is the heart of what America is, or what it was founded to be.

Expanding liberty would a worthwhile goal for discussion in a presidential election year.  Devolving power to individuals and to state governments, which lack the sort of monopoly the federal government possesses in its continental reach, is surely worth talking about.  What might be some practical ways of accomplishing this goal?

Restore to individuals and to businesses that are not inextricably linked to government the right to discriminate.  The right to discriminate is at the heart of freedom.  What if a particular variety of discrimination seems wrong to us?  Then we, personally, should not do it.  We might also tell businesses that if they want our trade, we will consider when and how they discriminate.  But stop making federal judges and government bureaucrats the arbitrators of good and bad discrimination.  Let markets and individual consciences do that.

Abolish as many federal offices and agencies as possible.  This does not mean that the function performed by that agency is not a proper role of government, but rather that it is not the proper role of a national government.  Government operations close to the people, that compete within states or among states for taxpayers, businesses, and homeowners, cannot trample liberties recklessly. 

Finally, consider giving teeth to the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, all about liberty.  It is from beginning to end a statement of what the federal government may not do, to us or to the governments of the states.  The Second Amendment, for example, is about preserving our individual right of self-protection.  We need to stop apologizing for exercising that right. 

The Ninth Amendment is not about allowing abortion on demand.  Hear the words of that amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The italicized words show an intention to limit federal judicial power, which was also seen as a threat to liberty.

The sad fact, of course, is that we live in a land full of people more afraid of the responsibilities of freedom than the blessings of freedom.  Until we re-learn the purpose of government in our land, the problems we have in politics will remain intractable and politics largely an exercise in futility.

America is about liberty, and with liberty, despite the dolts who hold or seek elective office, our nation will do just fine.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_purpose_of_government.html#ixzz3w7NwEoA8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook