Department of Agriculture

[kandrathe]

Interesting suggestions going on in here. Your math is lacking a 3% yearly inflation on the final 15-20 year replacement cost which would have to be factored into the end cost, and the cost of labor to upkeep the utility. I'd say a flat 0.1% federal tax would cover the labor costs. You want to start an online petition to start this project ?

"First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts." -- Thornton Melon

[Jester]

A good rule is you can get the equivalent of about 42% of maximum output per 12 hours of sunlight - less on cloudy days. So a one square meter solar panel should provide 0.42 x 12 hours x 150 watts = 756 Watt-hours per day.

The US consumed 396155900000000 Watt-hours in 2009. So, 396155900000000 Watt-hours / 365 days) / 756 (assuming 12 hours of sun every day) works out to 1435659564 square meters, or ~554.3 square miles. That works out to a square area about 23.5 miles across.

...

The approximate cost per square meter is £250 or about $390. That works out to a project cost just for the panels of 1435659564 * $392 = ~ $562 billion.

So, lets for simplicity we need about $750 billion every 20 years to build and maintain the infrastructure to provide power for about 312 million people. That's $750 billion / 20 years = $37.5 billion per year, and for 312 million people is about $120 per person per year.

Not sure about the rest of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure you're low by 10x, because the US consumes approximately 4 petawatt-hours in a year, not 0.4.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Not sure about the rest of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure you're low by 10x, because the US consumes approximately 4 petawatt-hours in a year, not 0.4.

You are probably right. Add a zero to the end of everything.

4,125,060,000,000,000 watt hours for 2011 -- Source = http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

I'd like a $120 per person a year electric bill. Not so much a $1200 / person / year electric bill. I have electric heat as well and I spend half that much for my family.

[shoju]

The solar power hitting the Earth is about 1000 Watts per square meter in full sun at sea level. The efficiency of solar panels is increasing, but let's assume 15% of that power can be converted to electricity. Early in the morning and late at night solar panels have a much reduced output with maximum output near noon. A good rule is you can get the equivalent of about 42% of maximum output per 12 hours of sunlight - less on cloudy days. So a one square meter solar panel should provide 0.42 x 12 hours x 150 watts = 756 Watt-hours per day.

The US consumed 3961559000000000 Watt-hours in 2009. So, 3961559000000000 Watt-hours / 365 days) / 756 (assuming 12 hours of sun every day) works out to 14356595640 square meters, or ~5540.3 square miles. That works out to a square area about 74.4 miles across. And, that would be a solid collection surface. Realistically you could double that for spacing of collectors, and what not. I believe in distributive networks, so rather than one mega site, I'd rather see about 20 or so distributed sites.

The down side is that the first 6 years would be used to pay back the energy costs of building the solar panels. After that, free energy. Well, perhaps not entirely free with maintenance (keeping the dust off them and etcetera... Then, they'd need to be replaced at end of life which may be 15 to 20 years I would guess. The approximate cost per square meter is £250 or about $390. That works out to a project cost just for the panels of 14356595640 * $392 = ~ $5.620 trillion

So, lets for simplicity we need about $7.5 trillion every 20 years to build and maintain the infrastructure to provide power for about 312 million people. That's $7.5 trillion / 20 years = $370.5 billion per year, and for 312 million people is about $1200 per person per year. Pretty good expensive. And, due to weather and seasons, and nighttime, we'd still need some other form of power production or storage for the non-sunny times.

Edit: Multiplied everything by 10... Thx Jester.

I'm curious what would happen if you took into account businesses, and what not. How low could you get the bill? I mean, I don't use nearly the electricity that my place of business uses, and they don't use as much as the big box retailers, and so on and so forth.

Then, assuming that this project would be a "pretty big frikken deal", you wonder if they could amp up the maximum output? Even a 10% improvement in quality, to 46.2% would have pretty drastic results:

.462 X 12 X 150 = 831.6 WHpD

I can see why a distributive would be best, I don't know if it is "possible" and achieve the results that you would in a place in the south in the desert, but To compensate, say you went with 20 sites. Each site is 500 SqMi of Solar. That gives you a distributive 10,000sq mi solar network. It's almost double the original size you came up with, but at 10,000 sq mi, even with a 10% boost in power, You then, would think that they would be able to store, and save power, and make it an almost self sustaining system.

It's a long way away from being something that could ever happen. I know that, but man... what would happen then?

I've been sort of a solar geek since I found out that my grandfather had installed a solar system on his house because he was mad at the city. He was never able to cut them out of the equation, but he was definitely able to put a dent in his electric bill.

[kandrathe]

Then, assuming that this project would be a "pretty big frikken deal", you wonder if they could amp up the maximum output? Even a 10% improvement in quality, to 46.2% would have pretty drastic results:

.462 X 12 X 150 = 831.6 WHpD
...

I think you are confused on the 42% -- that is in a given 12 hour day, the sun is not always in the ideal position relative to your collector panel -- even if you could track the sun to always be perpendicular, in the morning and evening the sun is penetrating more atmosphere to get to you. Hence, why you sun burn more during the times just before to just after noon. The efficiency number is reflected in the 150 W out of 1000W possible (15%) -- 10% better would yield 165 W per sq. meter * (12 hours * 42% available sun) = also 831 W hours / day.

There are more efficient cells -- they just are made from rare materials that put the costs into the stratosphere. Gallium arsenide multijunction for example. The Shockley-Queisser limit for the theoretical maximum efficiency of a solar cell peaks at 33% for single junction cells. They use them on things like the Mars rover where solar cell cost is not a concern relative to the cost of getting a rover to another planet.

[eppie]

I once read an article that said if one (government) were so inclined, they could take a 100 SQ Mile section of desert (the article proposed somewhere in New Mex/Ariz/Southern California) and with the use of solar panels, batteries, and the like, they could power the lower 48 indefinitely.

The resulting jobs would be a boon, the power would be a boon.

The article cited issues with getting it up and going, and the startup costs being massive as major hinderances. I'm sure that there are also fantastic logistical concerns, science problems, and the like with the proposal, and 100sq miles of solar panels = how much space to handle the rest of it?

But, it was nice food for thought.

The solar power hitting the Earth is about 1000 Watts per square meter in full sun at sea level. The efficiency of solar panels is increasing, but let's assume 15% of that power can be converted to electricity. Early in the morning and late at night solar panels have a much reduced output with maximum output near noon. A good rule is you can get the equivalent of about 42% of maximum output per 12 hours of sunlight - less on cloudy days. So a one square meter solar panel should provide 0.42 x 12 hours x 150 watts = 756 Watt-hours per day.

The US consumed 3961559000000000 Watt-hours in 2009. So, 3961559000000000 Watt-hours / 365 days) / 756 (assuming 12 hours of sun every day) works out to 14356595640 square meters, or ~5540.3 square miles. That works out to a square area about 74.4 miles across. And, that would be a solid collection surface. Realistically you could double that for spacing of collectors, and what not. I believe in distributive networks, so rather than one mega site, I'd rather see about 20 or so distributed sites.

The down side is that the first 6 years would be used to pay back the energy costs of building the solar panels. After that, free energy. Well, perhaps not entirely free with maintenance (keeping the dust off them and etcetera... Then, they'd need to be replaced at end of life which may be 15 to 20 years I would guess. The approximate cost per square meter is £250 or about $390. That works out to a project cost just for the panels of 14356595640 * $392 = ~ $5.620 trillion

So, lets for simplicity we need about $7.5 trillion every 20 years to build and maintain the infrastructure to provide power for about 312 million people. That's $7.5 trillion / 20 years = $370.5 billion per year, and for 312 million people is about $1200 per person per year. Pretty good expensive. And, due to weather and seasons, and nighttime, we'd still need some other form of power production or storage for the non-sunny times.

Edit: Multiplied everything by 10... Thx Jester.

Kandrathe, I am just following this thread just now but I would like to comment a bit. My father just placed solar panels on his roof (silicon single crystalline from china). I am not absolutely sure but I think they are 50 cm by 1.5 m or so (0.75 m2) and he has 14 of them (2 sets of 7) so 10.5 m2 for a total cost of around 400 dollar per m2 I think. He make around 12KWH on an average cloudy dutch summers day and indeed payback time was estimated at around 6 to 7 years. (which to me means everybody not putting them on his roof is an idiot).
Anyway the thing in Holland (one of the worse developed countries imn the world when it comes to supporting alternative energy) is that you can deduct what you generate from your usage. The cost for a KWH are around 25 eurocents I believe, but if you produce more than you use in a year you sell the extra back to the el company for a price of 7 cents per KWH.

Point is in Arizona payback times would be no more than 3 years if you ask me (you can use less cells in a series to reach the same voltage for example). There being so much more sun then in Holland (less cloudy days, better angle etc).

The only factor infuencing an economic choice here is what you pay for grey electricity. Still, in most of the southern states in the US every person with a house can generate all of the electricity he uses without a problem, and whithout very high costs.
And don't forget that solar cells are getting cheaper every year. And those silicon ones are low maintenance and apparantly very robust as well.

[Lissa]

Simply, direct solar works on small scale (a home), but does not work on a large scale (city) due to amount of power need, inefficiencies of solar cells at this time, and size of space needed to produce the power. You're more likely to be able to get better efficiencies and more generation through indirect solar power (wind).

The other problem is sheer power density of all power producing methods compared to nuclear. To put into perspective, the standard fission reaction, 200 MeV (splitting of U235 or Th233 atom), is about 8 fold that of a chemical reaction, 3 eV (like combustion). A single fission reaction produces as much energy as 66,000,000 CH4 + 2 O2.

[eppie]

Simply, direct solar works on small scale (a home), but does not work on a large scale (city) due to amount of power need, inefficiencies of solar cells at this time, and size of space needed to produce the power. You're more likely to be able to get better efficiencies and more generation through indirect solar power (wind).

The other problem is sheer power density of all power producing methods compared to nuclear. To put into perspective, the standard fission reaction, 200 MeV (splitting of U235 or Th233 atom), is about 8 fold that of a chemical reaction, 3 eV (like combustion). A single fission reaction produces as much energy as 66,000,000 CH4 + 2 O2.

Well 3 things.
1: no single power source can help us get through life....you always need a combination of things.

2: nuclear is not a structural solution because we all know the disadvantages (waste, danger, scarcity, only a few countries that will own the fuel etc.. in 100 years you have the same problem as with oil)

Solar and wind are the future; doubting this will only increase the time of innovations and full scale use.
Take solar; already now, in large parts of the world using solar panels on roofs of family homes can harvest enough energy for an average family to live off. Of course there is the issue of no energy at night or less in winter, but first you have the el-net to buffer this, and second in only a few years the first energy storage systems will become commercially available.
The coming generations of organic or DS solar cells are a factor of 10 (at least) cheaper than Si, way compensating their (for now) lower yields. These cells will be so cheap you can coat any surfcae with them.
And what about integrating in windows generating energy only from IR and UV light and letting pass through the rest.

The only reason we don't use more solat energy at the moment is pressure from conventional energy companies and poltical ignorance and unwill.

[kandrathe]

Simply, direct solar works on small scale (a home), but does not work on a large scale (city) due to amount of power need, inefficiencies of solar cells at this time, and size of space needed to produce the power. You're more likely to be able to get better efficiencies and more generation through indirect solar power (wind).

Both these ideas seem counter-intuitive. The only advantage of distribution is redundancy and failover. If you can't imagine a large plant being efficient, then splitting it into thousands, or millions of smaller ones will logically be much more inefficient. If direct solar is inefficient, then why would wind power be any more efficient (generally)? I think there are corridors where it is windy enough to give a viable boost, but at the cost of damaging the skyline and noise pollution. I'm also skeptical for most sites of the total cost of building the turbine and tower, installation, plus annual maintenance ever being repaid by the generation. Often wind, like solar, tend to be more of a politically correct implementation, rather than practical.

The other problem is sheer power density of all power producing methods compared to nuclear. To put into perspective, the standard fission reaction, 200 MeV (splitting of U235 or Th233 atom), is about 8 fold that of a chemical reaction, 3 eV (like combustion). A single fission reaction produces as much energy as 66,000,000 CH4 + 2 O2.

Spot on. Density is the key.

[Kevin]

I think there are corridors where it is windy enough to give a viable boost, but at the cost of damaging the skyline and noise pollution.

Like fields of oil derricks don't do this already? I don't mind the argument but I find it silly that it's never applied to the current fossil fuels that do the same thing.

I also think geothermal is another source that can be utilized more. The university I work at, in central Missouri, is replace an old coal fired plant with a geothermal plant currently. Well drilling in ongoing, a few of the fields are finished and since the majority of the fields are under parking lots once they are done you simply don't notice them. The generation plants are incorporated into existing or new buildings, you don't notice them either.

Since the coal plant is only used to generate heat and handle the chilled water loops, that's all the geothermal will do, though self sustainingly so there will be small electric generation to power the pumps themselves, but not for building power. But the entire campus building and water heating as well as all the chilled water will be handled from geothermal. This is actually a fairly hefty amount of energy usage and I don't remember how many tons of coal per year it will no longer require though I could look it up.

[eppie]

I think there are corridors where it is windy enough to give a viable boost, but at the cost of damaging the skyline and noise pollution.

Like fields of oil derricks don't do this already? I don't mind the argument but I find it silly that it's never applied to the current fossil fuels that do the same thing.

I agree with you. The skyline and noise argument when talking about windmills is in Holland usually used by the same people that want to build new highways everywhere and those that have never set foot in a forrest or national park. You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

[shoju]

We have several Wind Turbines spread around here locally, Probably a total of a dozen, but no more than 2 together. When I'm near them (150-200 yards off the road), I don't hear anything... Is there some noise pollution I'm unaware of?

[Kevin]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

Hey now, don't stereotype all those people. I run with while listening to audio books, because I've found that is what works the best for me to stay motivated and run farther/faster which give me more health benefits. I appreciate the visuals of running outdoors more than running indoors and even with headphones I can still here a lot of nature sounds. But since I'm running for exercise I'm generally not going to stop because of seeing or hearing something, I mean I stop if someone needs help, and stuff like that or if something is really bizzare, but that almost never happens. Without the audio from the player I simply would not run as much. Running with other people works because the conversation helps (yes you should be able to have a conversation while running unless you are doing speed/sprint work). I also go for walks/hikes and I don't wear headphones on those because I have the time to listen, look, and appreciate.

[Hammerskjold]

We have several Wind Turbines spread around here locally, Probably a total of a dozen, but no more than 2 together. When I'm near them (150-200 yards off the road), I don't hear anything... Is there some noise pollution I'm unaware of?

From my own personal experience as well, no. At least nothing appreciable. My next door neighbour's gas engine lawnmower and leaf blower is far louder, and I can hear it while inside the house.

I've once hiked in an area where there was a turbine, got close enough to see it, and didn't really hear anything.

From the local newsrags and somewhat questionable 'reports', some people say they can feel and hear low level hertz noise. The reason I say questionable is even though I am aware of the phenomenon of low hertz noise. The people that actually do say they can feel the turbine noise (not just reading it off a report or the net or their own echo chamber), are to be blunt. Comes off as technological dinosaur NIMBYs.

It usually seals the deal for me when they suddenly become super concerned about the number of birds that will be killed by these giant air blades. (In addition to the 'oh noez they ruin skyline and noize are terrible'.) Funny that I don't see them blathering and crying when there is an oil spill covering birds and spoiling my delicious shrimps.

I think there are corridors where it is windy enough to give a viable boost, but at the cost of damaging the skyline and noise pollution.

Yeah, turbines are such a sore sight. And loud. And probably (by that I mean they obviously do) kill dozens, if not MILLIONS of birds and other wildlife. I mean just look at 'em. They're like a huge blender blades people! Just out there in the open!111

Applying these criticism is not fair to fossil fuels you see, because we're talking about wind power. No technology shall be investigated unless it's 100% perfect and fullfill -my- own criteria that applies to everyone else.


Doesn't matter that fossil fuel is not perfect either, the replacement should be. And wind and solar despite some of you tree huggers bleatings, are still far from perfect. And it should also be a 100% replacement. None of this namby pamby idea of 'supplement'. It's either, or. Fish or fowl. My way, or the highway.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to write an angry letter to my local representative to stop wasting PUBLIC money on putting electrical street lights when they're obviously not perfect, cast a hideously ugly orange glow, and have none of the advantages of whale oil powered lamps.*

*My tune will suddenly change if some idiot decides to put up a newfangled LED street lamp, then I will obliviate on an on about how there was nothing wrong with the old electric sodium lamp, I actually liked the orange glow. And how LED is not a perfect technology yet. Yeah.

** this post written on a computer running on combination whale oil and orphan tears. 100% green machine using renewable fuels.

[kandrathe]

Like fields of oil derricks don't do this already? I don't mind the argument but I find it silly that it's never applied to the current fossil fuels that do the same thing.

I was assuming the given that fracking, and drilling oil are environmentally risky and dirty. Burning fossil fuels is dirty and killing us.

I also think geothermal is another source that can be utilized more.

Yes, and heat pumps.

My concern was more that people factor in the costs (in burnt oil) in smelting the tower, turbine, etc. then transporting to the prairie. If the economics are there, without government subsidies, then I'm all for it. If the government needs to "promote" the operation to make it viable, then it's not viable. I understand government helping with the capitalization, and implementation phase. That part requires zoning, permits, and investment. What doesn't make sense is ongoing funding for operations, for either solar or wind generation (or coal, oil or natural gas either).

[Hammerskjold]

My concern was more that people factor in the costs (in burnt oil) in smelting the tower, turbine, etc. then transporting to the prairie.

Yeah...if this was any other industry, they'd be called 'jobs'. Even if subsidies was\is involved. Even if there are jobs \ positions created simply to make some employment. Even if it wasn't 100% 'efficient', it's still better than getting politically ousted because the voters don't have jobs.

So why the sudden concern with counting dollars to the pennies when it comes to solar and wind?

What doesn't make sense is ongoing funding for operations, for either solar or wind generation (or coal, oil or natural gas either).

And yet ongoing funding still does flow into coil, oil, and natural gas. Many times I hear the justification is to support the jobs\economy. Both directly, and indirectly such as other industries that relies on worker\that industry dollars. After all employed people who has some spending money, spends that money. On things, services, maybe some nice shoes etc. All that magical invisible hand of the marketplace jazz libtards all seems to love.

So again, why the sudden penny pinching when it comes to solar, wind, or any other alternative source of energy technology? Do solar\wind engineers\maintenance\installers crew people just hoard their monies, and buy nothing? Or do they just bury it for composting or something? Maybe they're really bad tippers at restaurant? If they even go to restaurants...

[Lissa]

1: no single power source can help us get through life....you always need a combination of things.

Really? The French seem to do pretty good with 80% of their power coming from Nuclear (and if they had their drothers, they'd probably be 100%.

2: nuclear is not a structural solution because we all know the disadvantages (waste, danger, scarcity, only a few countries that will own the fuel etc.. in 100 years you have the same problem as with oil)

Wrong on several counts. Waste is a problem only because of non-proliferation. The majority of the "waste" that comes out of a nuclear reactor is usable fuel (about 95%), but because of non-proliferation, we cannot reprocess said fuel back out. If reprocess was allowed, only 0.5% of the waste from a reactor would be true waste (couldn't use it for anything) and that waste would be down to background levels in about 700 years (7 half lives). Nuclear also isn't dangerous if you spend the money as there are now designs that take an act of sabotage to cause them to go into an accident status above level 2, level 4 is what's known as LOCA (Loss of Coolant) and Three Mile Island was considered a 5, and Chernobyl and Fukashima were considered 7s. Scarcity is not an issue either as you can create more fuel than you expend using breeder reactors, we can literally produce an inexhaustible source of fuel, but again, non-proliferation rears its head. So, no, you're pretty much wrong on all accounts there.

Solar and wind are the future; doubting this will only increase the time of innovations and full scale use.

Again, wrong. The future is Fusion which again, is inexhaustable. The problem, people are putting money into other things instead of pushing for this. Fusion has the capabilities to produce more power than the entire world could use with a clean source of power. Fusion, like Fission, is highly dense power thus allowing you to produce a large amount of power in a small space, not muddling up the environment.

Take solar; already now, in large parts of the world using solar panels on roofs of family homes can harvest enough energy for an average family to live off. Of course there is the issue of no energy at night or less in winter, but first you have the el-net to buffer this, and second in only a few years the first energy storage systems will become commercially available.

As I said in my initial post, solar works great on the small scale, put people here were looking at large scale, ie, cities, not individual homes. The amount of space required for cities is huge compared to what would be needed for a home.

The coming generations of organic or DS solar cells are a factor of 10 (at least) cheaper than Si, way compensating their (for now) lower yields. These cells will be so cheap you can coat any surfcae with them.
And what about integrating in windows generating energy only from IR and UV light and letting pass through the rest.

There are a lot of technologies available, the thing is to determine which would pose both the cheapest and most dense, right now that belongs to nuclear, especially to Fusion if that starts moving along.

The only reason we don't use more solat energy at the moment is pressure from conventional energy companies and poltical ignorance and unwill.

Again, not true. The reason we don't use other alternative sources is:

1) They aren't dense enough for a city, for a home, great, for a city no.

2) Their efficiencies are horrible to proven technologies. The best alternate source right now has an efficiency around 27%, the best normal source of energy right now, sadly, is coal at about 40% (nuclear is around 37%). That difference in efficiency is huge when you start talking in the MW and GW ranges.

3) Most alternates only work in certain areas or at certain times of day which makes them bad for "peak" times where you have to fall back on other energies source for when you need to get up to power quick for peak demand (this is done normally by use of gas turbines burning methane).

[eppie]

You know, the type that when they go running (or jogging as the call it) in a somewhat 'natural' area wears earplugs to listen to their ipod insetad of to the birds.

Hey now, don't stereotype all those people. I run with while listening to audio books, because I've found that is what works the best for me to stay motivated and run farther/faster which give me more health benefits. I appreciate the visuals of running outdoors more than running indoors and even with headphones I can still here a lot of nature sounds. But since I'm running for exercise I'm generally not going to stop because of seeing or hearing something, I mean I stop if someone needs help, and stuff like that or if something is really bizzare, but that almost never happens. Without the audio from the player I simply would not run as much. Running with other people works because the conversation helps (yes you should be able to have a conversation while running unless you are doing speed/sprint work). I also go for walks/hikes and I don't wear headphones on those because I have the time to listen, look, and appreciate.

Thank you for proving false yet another of my own made up stereotypes.

But, I would like to change it then for hammerskjolds example about leaf blower users.

---

My concern was more that people factor in the costs (in burnt oil) in smelting the tower, turbine, etc. then transporting to the prairie. If the economics are there, without government subsidies, then I'm all for it. If the government needs to "promote" the operation to make it viable, then it's not viable. I understand government helping with the capitalization, and implementation phase. That part requires zoning, permits, and investment. What doesn't make sense is ongoing funding for operations, for either solar or wind generation (or coal, oil or natural gas either).

Kandrathe, the economics are fine. Subsidies are at the moment mainly used to sponsor the big energy and engineering companies.....because of course otherwise they would never think about changing teams.....wind turbines make money but not as much as just simply pumping up oil.

Again a story here in NL. There is a cooperation in which private parties can invest money. The cooperation has bought at the moment already 5 windmills (different sizes). Investments give you a share of the EL profit.....the last 5 years the returns are between 5 and 6 %.....good luck finding a bank that can do that for you.

[eppie]

3) Most alternates only work in certain areas or at certain times of day which makes them bad for "peak" times where you have to fall back on other energies source for when you need to get up to power quick for peak demand (this is done normally by use of gas turbines burning methane).

You have a good internet knowledge about energy, but you opinions on fusion make me think you only use certain specific sources to make up you mind.
Me, a beta scientist who loves innovation and spending money on R&D have absolutely no believe that in the coming 200, 300 years we will be able to construct a working fusion reactor.
Although (in your defence) I must say that nuclear and especially fusion R&D also suffers from the fact that politics and energy industry are only supporting oil, gas and coal.

[kandrathe]

So why the sudden concern with counting dollars to the pennies when it comes to solar and wind?

I have the same concern about having China manufacture and invest energy into rubber novelty toys, to fill container ships to be sent all over the world. I'm concerned about heedless consumption, and whenever we take finite materials which within a decade or less will end up in a landfill, or wash up as trash on a beach. Rather than jobs that waste energy and materials, I'd rather they were employed to dig a hole one day, then fill it in the next. It would be less harmful to our planet and save the resources. I'm sure we can think of something better to do.

And yet ongoing funding still does flow into coil, oil, and natural gas.

It's a part of the problem of the whole hand outs to corporate special interests crap.

Many times I hear the justification is to support the jobs\economy. Both directly, and indirectly such as other industries that relies on worker\that industry dollars. After all employed people who has some spending money, spends that money. On things, services, maybe some nice shoes etc. All that magical invisible hand of the marketplace jazz libtards all seems to love.

By the same logic, it would be best for the economy if we burned everything down. That way, we'd employ more people to rebuild it. Waste is waste. If you turn something into nothing, you've actually lost, not gained. If you walk in a big enough circle, it just look like progress. Are you advocating human hamster wheels? It might actually be productive if you put generators on them.

So again, why the sudden penny pinching when it comes to solar, wind, or any other alternative source of energy technology? Do solar\wind engineers\maintenance\installers crew people just hoard their monies, and buy nothing? Or do they just bury it for composting or something? Maybe they're really bad tippers at restaurant? If they even go to restaurants...

Or, we might employ people in productive pursuits where we don't waste our time and money pretending they are helping. Whether you are a corporation, an individual or a government, not all spending is good spending.

We are in a a debt hole, with a failing world economy because we've borrowed more money than we can repay (and mostly built a huge military that didn't attack much). If we are going to invest in something (as a society -- with our tax money) then we should also demand that there be a societal return on investment. The easiest example is education. But, there is a limit to how much a brain can learn in a day/week -- so there is a limit to teaching, and therefore the spending. Here in the US we tend to try to solve problems, like illiteracy, by throwing money at it rather than investigate how and why the people are illiterate and if a lack of money is actually the problem. Sometimes it is.

Back to power.

It makes little sense to spend time, money and [X] KWh making a component that will return [X-1] Kwh in its lifespan. Even if somebody gets employed in the process, it would be best to not waste the resources and have that person pick up litter or plant trees instead. That will actually help the environment.

Kandrathe, the economics are fine. Subsidies are at the moment mainly used to sponsor the big energy and engineering companies.....because of course otherwise they would never think about changing teams.....wind turbines make money but not as much as just simply pumping up oil.

Natural gas is now cheaper than when the chart was made at about $2.75 / Mcf.
Wikipedia: Cost of electricity by source