How Many Green Technologies Would Fail Without Subsidies

LMAO. I can't stop laughing at this response. GA

It sounds as though these scientists have dicovered the Laws of Thermodynamics.

No, they are still hung up on corn. The last batch of fuel ethanol that we made from biomass in a public demonstration cost us 72 cents per gallon to make. We do not show any government subsidies in our pro-forma, and it makes a nice profit. With the current government subsidies, we can pay a customer 5 cents per gallon to use our fuel and still show a small profit

I just did some reading on this agency in Popular Science, http://arpa-e.energy.gov/. The director is very smart and very hands-on.

This, to me, is a valid use of taxpayer money and hopefully will yield some promising technology.

Wasting money and forcing things that don't make economic sense.............or save the planet, is, and always will be, STUPID!!!!!

Even Al Gore has said that ethanol was a bad idea. Unfortunately, once bad ideas gain momentum, there is no stopping them. Common sense is thrown out the window.

Green technologies without credentials to meet demands of sustainability like cost, carbon emissions, environmental implications, long term workability,simplicity etc can never make impacts. The basic criteria of all our efforts should be based on low cost green electricity without burning any form of matter.Any development in green technologies should be framed on viability of clean, green, cheapest, mega electricity generation.We are simply beating the wrong bush of renewable and alternative resources to feed our expanding stomach of energy demand.

JRaef, I agree with allot of what you have had to say on this matter, and did vote for a GA. I too agree that Ethanol is such a very stupid idea and it is only to get worse with the folks from Monsanto involved in our Government, but this belongs to another blog. That said, subsidies has and will be with us forever. I will step off the plank and say: Nuclear is really an very viable option as long as it is done correctly and so far in the US it has not been. As for Solar, I'd love to use it, just not ready to undertake the expense, Wind, Love to use it, wind doesn't always blow here and is not quite as expensive as Solar, but only having wind 30% of the time, deem it expensive also. Geothermal, doesn't work in my area with the amount of land I have so it is not an option. So I am back to my utility and my diesel back up for now. One that did not seem to be mentioned was Hydrogen. I see promise in this for now as the front runner, but what I don't see is subsidises for this? I did receive an email yesterday, or Sunday on BP getting out of the Solar Business in the US. I think we will have subsidies for ever though. What we really need is that Damn Flux Capacitor in every home in the world!

As for Hydro, there is allot wrong environmentally wise and same goes for all these gas powered plants which I think are far worse for the environmental impact they leave behind every day. Leads me back to Nuclear that can be done right! Then we also have a few individuals experimenting in some very high tech avenues that is privately funded at the moment. So far they either fail or create nice expensive explosions. I think in time, we will get that flux capacitor. And I am sure that will be subsidized as well.

Forget nuclear there are way too many issues.

This company http://www.ausra.com/technology/applications.html shows the way forward. Apart from people who live in ridiculously cold places there is a low impact future. I think I read somewhere that schemes like Ausra could power the current (world) electrical demand with an array of 100kmx100km. That is big but have you seen the hot centre of Australia?

I agree with you assessment of ethanol. I have done some looking into personally making ethanol to use as a fuel, but found it to be totally unacceptable on a simple cost basis. The fact is: 2.5 gallons of ethanol can be produced from a bushel of corn, but even when corn cost less than $2 a bushel, a gallon of gas was cheaper. Now that corn is significantly more expensive that 2.5 gallons of ethanol will never cost less than a gallon of regular gas. Now I don't have the latest wholesale cost of corn when bought by the thousands of tons, but it seems to me that the cost of making ethanol far outweighs the benefit provided by it. It also seems to me that many of the "green" alternatives for energy are the same way. Yes, everything is subsidized one way or another, but it seems to me that the "green" energy could not exist the way that it does now without the subsidies, and tax breaks given to the energy producers. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. TANSTAAFL!

Overall I agree with you, however, I am not sure I understand your statement that "fossil fuels are directly subsidized by the continually rising cost we must pay for it as it becomes more scarce". Isn't that a result of supply and demand? Are you suggesting that the cost of a product we pay is us subsidizing it? I don't think that is the common definition of subsidy. When the price of a product goes up do to limited supply, we either pay it or not.

• According to www.dictionary.com: a subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

A subsidy is when the government steps in and pays the increase in an effort to keep prices paid directly by the consumer low.

I'm sure in some countries that happens, are you suggesting that's happening in the USA with oil? Can you explain?

here a few examples

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=subsidizing+oil

oil production has been encouraged for many years in different ways

we [as a government] can determine the winners & losers through the use of taxes & regulations

I see your point.

I suppose I view a subsidy as being more direct than a reduction in taxes due to being able to write off certain business expenses. But essentially both can be considered subsidies.

I am generally not in favor of the government picking winners and losers whether it be via tax code or direct subsidy/welfare, which is one of the many reasons I'm more in favor of a NRST (National Retail Sales Tax) over an income tax and a flat tax over the current tax system in the USA and in favor of untaxing all businesses. Taxes should only be applied to individuals as only individuals really pay for the tax in the end.

It's not just taxes that determine winners & losers

regulations [or lack] & money policy also decide the profitability of any enterprise

Agreed

"According to www.dictionary.com: a subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like."

You are using the dictionary to define a socio-political concept. OK, you win.

My point really was that everything related to energy COSTS us all something, not just the people directly using it. Sure, we pay whatever the price is for our fossil fuels. That is the DIRECT cost. But my point was that BEHIND that direct cost is what we, as a society and even as a species, are paying for the privilege of being able to harvest that energy form. I'm not condemning fossil fuel use, in fact I think that for the foreseeable future we don't have any real choice. I just think the people who rant on about direct subsidies of other less ubiquitous energy sources are being just a little short sighted. We need to increase our ability to harvest ALL sources of energy that are reasonable. And the closer we can do that to the end user, the better.

People rail on and on about how long the payback is for someone to install solar PV systems by using a very narrow economic model of the individual user's ROI. What gets left out is the MAIN reason why the subsidies exist, a concept well understood by power utilities called "Avoided Cost of Delivery". ACOD takes into account the energy usage growth in an area, the existing power generation method and capacity, the cost to increase that capacity using the existing method, and finally the cost to increase the delivery of it (especially in an increasingly NIMBY world) to that user. So yes, even if the homeowner only saves $1340 per year and it cost $150,000 to install (a set of numbers I don't happen to believe), the utility that supported the subsidy of that system is saving a LOT more in ACOD. Those costs would otherwise be borne by all of ratepayers in increased utility bills were it not for the new point source generation. When you need to add 100kWh per month at a home, the power utility must generate approximately 250kWh of energy to get it there. The cost of generating and delivering that extra 150kWh is never factored into the ROI when people rant about subsidies. And that is just the generation, transmission and distribution losses! If the power utility has to build a new fossil fuel plant to feed 10,000 new 100kWh customers, and fight protacted legal battles with people who don't want the transmission towers in their back yards, the amortized cost to ALL rate payers for years and years is astronomical. So if they can get a large percentage of them to install point source generation, it pays everyone.

I was researching a move to northern Arizona last year

there is a generous subsidy if you build a new home & keep it off the grid.

I think that the government could do a better job of Picking winners that have the best ROI overall

I'm with ya consumption & use taxes are the way to go

Would you be worried about it if someone told you that it took more energy to make a litre of petrol or diesel than that litre delivered as fuel?

What about the energy to make the food you eat?

What about the amount of water to make paper? From what I have read it takes much more water to make the paper than it does to flush it away (this includes water to grow the trees as well as make the paper). A low flush toilet might start with growing trees in places that have plenty of water :)

There are 6.7 billion inhabitants in the world. Of these, approximately 1.6 billion are without electricity and over 1 billion inhabitants go hungry. Therefore, increasing access to energy is of great importance in order for countries to achieve social and industrial objectives and have sustainable development. Looking for alternatives for clean energy is not a bad initiative. It is hoped that in future technology will develop to produce clean energy at economical rate without much subsidiaries

The bottom line is that there are just TOO MANY HOOMANS!!! who want a FREE LUNCH!!!- & increasing!!. The fully renewable energy like trees supply is limited as more land is cleared!- to feed hoomans with crops etc that are not cost effective! ie costs more to grow than get back!- but subsidies are added!. So whole circus continues!. But I will not worry- I will go on in my polluting, over unity destruction of everything I can!- multiplied by over 6 billion animals! who think they are a special creation!- Good luck- we will need it!. Neil Kwyrer.

I am against subsidies for anything, regardless of merit, so please do not interpret this answer as a defense of subsidies.

My particular point is that the common attack on ethanol - the claim that more energy is needed to produce it than is realized by combustion - is spurious. As argued in more detail in my 'blog, the form in which the invested energy occurs is just as important as the amount. No process - biological processes included - is 100% efficient, so it must be true that all fuels give back less energy than it took to form them. Focusing on ethanol, if the energy invested were in the form of high-grade, refined fuels like diesel fuel or gasoline, then ethanol would have to be considered a losing proposition. If the energy invested is low-grade heat from a solar collector or from combustion of waste biomass, the conclusion is opposite even though the quantity of energy put in will almost certainly be greater in the latter case. If you invest a large amount of energy that is otherwise unusable, and end up with a small amount of energy in highly available form, you have won, not lost.

Hybrids and pure electric cars? There's no question in my mind that the current generation of both are a sure flop without subsidies, but I do not believe that is inherent in the breed. My numbers have told me for years that much cheaper, low-tech road vehicles would work very well as electrics or hybrids, but nobody seems to be building those except for some Asian companies building light runabouts and motor tricycles which would probably not be street-legal in America. Already at the turn of the 20th century, local delivery vehicles with the primitive electric motors, motor controls and storage batteries then available, were operating profitably. The length of local delivery routes in cities has not changed much since 1910, though the volume of goods has increased. There is no reason why a local delivery fleet could not be operated today with conventional deep-cycle lead-acid batteries, or better yet with Edison (nickel-iron) batteries, with no subsidies needed. Instead government decrees that the family car be electrified despite the much greater difficulty in doing that, and the manufacturers obediently come up with ultra-high-tech "solutions" which in effect make the consumer a guinea pig for untried technology, at enormous expense to him even with subsidies. Small wonder the cars aren't moving very fast off the showroom floor.

Photovoltaics? Just run the numbers - at least that technology is proven and available off the shelf. If the numbers come out right, go, but if you have grid power available they will very rarely come out in favor of PV. Sometimes non-pecuniary concerns dominate - like the need to have backup power available in a remote location with frequent power-line breakage. Here at least the numbers are reliable and support an unequivocal pro or con. The efficiency and useful life of the PV panels, efficiency and life of the controller circuitry, the cost, efficiency and useful life of the obligatory storage battery bank - all that can be put in a spreadsheet and its lifecycle cost compared with the expected cost of whatever competitor there is - typically the grid. I would start with the book Living on 12 Volts with Ample Power, which gives a very good overview and sample calculations.

For a balanced perspective on the efficacy of various "green" proposals, I would highly recommend David MacKay's volume, "Sustainable Energy- Without all the Hot Air), available for free download here. MacKay puts reasonable numbers to both sides of the argument, and helps sort out where and when some of these technologies might be practical.

Unfortunately, his analysis is rather negative on most alternatives like wind, solar and ethanol...The pundits of these technologies tend to ignore their ultimate environmental impact, while the detractors tend to ignore the benefits that can be gained from specific applications that meet strict criteria...

The only "logical" solution is population control- unfortunately, government-mandated population control (i.e., genocide, as practiced by ancient empire builders from the Hittites to the Romans to Genghis Khan, or mandated birth control as mandated by the modern Chinese, or government-supported abortion) is viewed in much of the world as unethical, and has generally proved self-destructive over the long term. Also unfortunately, the natural solution (i.e., uncontrolled disease epidemics in more and more densely-populated cities, lack of potable water, and inadequate food supplies and inequitable distribution of food and water) are also less than desirable. I personally believe, however, that Nature will win the day...

"... I personally believe, however, that Nature will win the day.."

One could argue, I suppose, that "nature" is winning the day, by making us so intelligent and yet so stupid as to devise our own annihilation!

Nature is making us so intelligent?!!!- in comparison to what?-may I ask?- & who is nature?. Mankind has only advanced thru shared knowledge- aided by that invention of the devil- computers!!!.

Nothing is easier than to sit in your sofa and decide, without moving a finger, the Future of Manking. Or to say that there is no hope.

Instead I have always preferred to do something within my scarce limits.

About 65 years ago, when in High School, I decided that tu burn gasoline in our engines was a stupidity, because to the energy of gasoline we must deduct the energy to refine oil.

Why not make engines that could burn crude oil directly?.

So I invented an interesting engine capable of burning practically ANYTHING that could be burned.

This engine was, of course, only an engineering curiosity in these times of cheap oil.

But Time has worked in its favor and now it can be used to burn ANY agricultural or forestry refuse just converted to dry fine dust

(This is the only proccessing needed).

The life of the lone inventor was and still is very hard.

Now I am trying unsuccessfully to convince Manufacturers all around the World to pay any attention to this engine.

For example: The Manufacturer of the split cycle engine of Coletti. (No answers to my proposals)

Please be confident that the ingenuity of inventors will come out with ideas to save Mankind of the present bad moment.

There are many fields to improve, like transportation where existing 1200-2000 Kg cars should be substituted by well designed very narrow and small vehicles for 1+1 persons plus some luggage, weighing no more than 150 Kg.

The fact that everybody will dislike these poor man's cars is irrelevant. The hard facts will impose them.

But, if properly designed, they do not have to be less attractive than a Porsche.

There is something very interesting too.

Most of the developed Countries live in the so called Temperate Zone of the Planet, with hot Summers and cold Winters of equal duration.

Heating and cooling needs can be covered without the use of any external energy by only storing the excees of heat in Summer and releasing it in Winter. And viceversa.

A standard house will need only about ten tons of CaCl2 (Very inexpensive) in a simple reactor to accomplush the apparent miracle.

Only these two proposals will take a big chunk of our overall energy consumption.

As for electric vehicles, my opinion is that batteries should be of an unlimited life cycle, for example: The Zinc/Air battery that is filled with Zinc powder at the Gas Station and the residue of ZnO is removed from the battery for a continuous cycle of reduction to pure Zinc at large Factories.

This is a completely sustainable system of electric cars, and the Logistics will be the same than the existing ones, except that the Fuel Trucks will return loaded to the factory. Also Zinc is extremely safe compared with present fuels. There is a lot of Zinc in the Planet, but the good news is that it is NOT consumed in the proccess.

Now these Zinc-charging Factories can be activated by renewable energies with little care if they are not always operating at 100% capacity

So please. A little more faith in the human ingenuity to save us from most of our present problems!

Chorete

Great discussion thread by the way, lots of intelligent thought going on here.

Side note:

Recent development worthy of being shared with this group, albeit not exactly "green" even if it pans out.

Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop though. Call me a skeptic...

Hope springs eternal...

Wow. Last time I ran the numbers for a site here in Panama, payback was only 40 years...Of course, we also get 12 hours of daylight year round (maybe 9 hours usable).

I see you also don't figure in cost of replacing the batteries every 4 to 5 years...

I am not in the habit of replying to my initial post but it appears that the situation may resolve itself. After careful consideration I've concluded that it is not in my best interests to invest in any energy form who success is not market driven but entirely dependent on government subsidies. I am part of a large engineering design community which has a substantial level of experience in energy. My own personal experience ranges from shale oil recovery in Alberta, Canada to instrumentation for fusion reactors in San Diego and many points in between. When queried on the viability of Solar Panels all my associates agreed that without the artificial stimulus of Federal and State Governments, solar panels, as well as most every other Green system, would fail. To make matters worse, State and Federal Governments are broke. The stimulus packages that promised such fantastic returns are in serious jeopardy and are not likely to survive the desperate budget cuts that are coming. Dr Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, said recently ". . . . . that to see solar power proliferate manufacturers have to reduce the price of their products by a factor of four". What does that tell you? Last Fall he gave a talk at the Forestal Campus, Princeton's Plasma Physics lab and the emphasis we heard was on cleaning up coal and advancing nuclear power. Not ethanol (another mistake!), not solar energy. The economic incentives needed for anyone to invest in a solar array either are not there or will soon disappear as budget priorities hammer non-essentials out of existence. I plan to leave the state soon. For me to invest in anything for which I will not see a real short term ROI, makes no sense, especially when so risky. As I write this, Libya's oppressive leader is going through a much deserved ouster and the cost of oil is rising faster than an orbital launch from Cape Canaveral. How this will affect the efficacy of solar electric panels is difficult to predict but I do not foresee any long term improvement in their viability. The technology simply isn't there yet. Thanks The Laughing Jaguar