Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

A Solar Gold Rush Is Spreading From California to New Jersey

By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted October 30, 2008.


With new solar-powered movie theaters and factories, the solar industry is exploding. But how far can it take us toward a clean energy future?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Solar power is exploding in America, particularly in California. San Luis Obispo's Palm Theatre and Berkeley's Shotgun Players are now the first solar-powered theaters in the country; FedEx's distribution center in Fontana has a solar system covering 20,834 square feet; and Google's Mountain View campus boasts America's largest corporate solar installation. True to its pioneering spirit, California is leading the way -- but that's not to say other states aren't tagging quickly behind.

"California has a comprehensive approach to solar. We have an aggressive, proactive environment that allows legislators to go ahead and do things -- the mentality is definitely here," says Andrew McAllister, director of programs at the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE), a nonprofit dedicated to facilitating clean energy technologies and practices. McAllister muses that the state's energy crisis several years ago, when deregulation led to unpredictable electricity prices, goaded California into collective action. "Worldwide, solar is still driven by policy more than any other factor, and what makes California attractive is its political commitment to taking the lead."

In America, most of the policies that affect the solar industry are created at the state level. California, which is now poised to become the world's second-fastest-growing solar market behind Germany, has a long pioneering history, which has fueled the solar industry as much as the state's abundant sunshine.

As proof, in 2005, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved $300 million for statewide solar rebates, tripling the original sum in order to bolster the market; since its Million Solar Roofs program kicked off in 2006, California has installed more solar panels than in the previous 10 years combined; and in 2007, the state approved the California Solar Initiative, the country's largest solar energy policy to date, offering homeowners a rebate on top of the federal tax credit and plans to provide $2.8 billion toward solar incentives over the next decade.

Says Adam Browning, co-founder of Vote Solar Initiative, the San Francisco-based nonprofit established to bring solar energy to the mainstream, "It's a dynamic race, of course. California is working hard to expand support, and our utility companies have been much more accommodating and aggressive."

But other states are giving California a run for its money in an increasingly competitive solar market. Take Oregon, which has been proactive in welcoming renewable energy business thanks to the state's Business Energy Tax Credit (nicknamed "Betsy"), which covers 50 percent of all project costs -- the country's largest solar incentive. In August, Oregon's Department of Transportation announced plans to build a solar panel installation along a stretch of interstate, the first such project in the nation; in October, Germany's SolarWorld opened the largest solar factory in the Americas in Hillsboro; and in the same month, Sanyo began building its $80 million, 70-megawatt solar manufacturing facility in Salem.

Oregon isn't alone. There's New Mexico, with an abundance of arid land and sunlight, offering the perfect platform for large-scale solar thermal installation projects. New Mexico recently welcomed a project from Germany's Schott Solar, one of the world's leading solar companies, which has invested $100 million to build a solar equipment manufacturing plant outside Albuquerque. And Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey (which, according to solar energy research company Solarbuzz, is emerging as America's next solar-friendly state) are all heavily recruiting solar manufacturers, not to mention creating attractive incentives.

As proof of the industry's vitality, in October San Diego hosted the industry's largest event, Solar Power International, boasting its greatest turnout ever -- from a few hundred attendees in 2001 to 23,000 this year. "The buzz created in San Diego is highly indicative," says Vote Solar's Browning. "This is a dynamic time for the industry as a whole right now."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, renewable energy, clean energy, solar

Dara Colwell is a freelance writer based in Amsterdam.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Halla-fricken-lujah!
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Oct 30, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Halla-fricken-lujah! Twenty years ago, we anti-nukers were begging for solar. Will be nice to see it in our lifetimes...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Halla-fricken-lujah! Posted by: richholland
Make those solar panels out of hemp like all other plastics and
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 30, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America will be flying high into truly cleaner energy sources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Try plastic solar sheeting Posted by: channing
would be nice
Posted by: grkjr on Oct 30, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
20 years ago I worked briefly in the solar industry.. i remember it well, every time the govt stepped in to rebate the purchases to some degree, the price of installation went up. so the industry simply pocketed the rebate leaving the consumer out.. So how does it go all these years later.... is the pay back for an installation still equal to the life span of the product.. {is the economy of scale still not working in the solar industry}.. that is one yard stick to measure it by.. Also are those solar jobs paying wal-mart kind of wages are or they paying a living wage.. namely is the pay a minimum of $20 per hour to start......???? it would be wonderful if all the assumptions i have made are no longer true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It IS nice Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: would be nice Posted by: bornxeyed
» That is how it is designed to work Posted by: Iconoclast421
Disaster for solar invention
Posted by: PaulK on Oct 30, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My admission price for bringing solar electricity down to 2 cents per kwh would be about $10m that I sure don't have. I currently hold only 1 of several needed patents before I can get this project off the ground.

I have enough problems financing my solar building heat invention. I expect to fundamentally improve the price/performance of solar building heat in the frost belt, with all sorts of extensions of these ideas, and I can't get the next prototype built because of small $$. It's crazy out here!

Maybe if I changed my name to AIG, "International is our middle name", I could get $85 billion in my mailbox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's actually 4 major problems overcome by large-scale solar
Posted by: channing on Oct 30, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Foreign Wars fought for oil and future ones fought over uranium/plutonium.

2. Future threats from finite limitations of source-fuels.

3. Climate Warming CO2 Increases.

4. Self-Sustaining/Self-Perpetuating Green-Collar Economy.

Dara Colwell has written an exciting piece here, but I'd like to add to the excitement and counter one little point:

"But big plants, usually built in the desert where the sun shines the brightest, require high-voltage transmission power lines to reach customers in the cities, and where those power lines are supposed to go is a divisive environmental issue."

This issue is only "divisive" due to the technology's infancy, "it's new and mysterious", and the fact that Americans are so far behind the curve on the current state of development regarding high-tension distribution. "High-tension" distribution already exists all over the world including the US, for instance from nuclear and coal power plants, and everyone who's paid attention the last few years MUST realize is that the ancient US electrical grid MUST BE REBUILT TODAY ANYWAY! Environmentalists will soon realize that, on the ground and in the air, high-tension electrical transmission is already safe for deserts, wildlife and the human race, and can be made "invisible" for special cases with current technology.

Environmentally-neutral High-tension transmission line technology already exists, but what currently is the real hard-work being overcome is doing it cheap. Germany is leading the way right now and others are fervently developing solutions to connecting intercontinental desert installations based on the model initiated by Desertec at http://www.trecers.net/. But believe it or not, bigger obstacle in solving global energy is a dirty-word in the US: International Cooperation!

...and when the author refers to this comment:

"Says Solar Living Institute's Walker, "One thing to keep in mind is there's no real silver bullet in regards to solving our larger energy challenges. Solar plays a significant part in that solution, but if you look at total global demand for energy, it's quite staggering."

Walker is too close to the trees to see that solar is itself the silver-bullet forest that modern man has been seeking to break through the finite-resource limitations made evident in the 20th century. Earth's deserts ALONE absorb some 800 times the amount of converted solar energy than humanity consumes from all other sources combined. The intercontinental approach forms the one alternative energy backbone that has no equal.

Doing local solar, wind, geothermal and wave are vital components, and the author is right that these cannot by themselves "solve the energy or environmental crisis", but an informed view of international-intercontinental cooperation on solar, absent dictators and war-mongers, will for the first time allow humanity to grow beyond the multi-thousand year reign of the Weaponized bully!

Obama says he'll plug $15 Billion/year into this... bet you it gets to the $50 Billion/year the Apollo Alliance has been advocating within 3 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Incentive Tax Credit... that's an interesting one.
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Oct 30, 2008 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason it passed the Senate, apparently, was the veto by the House of the first $700 billion bailout - that's what I call the high-water mark for democracy, up to this point.

Then, the Senate attached the ITC to the bailout bill - which was a way of holding the ITC hostage to the passage of the bailout - and that's one of the factors that led the House to reconsider.

I think this shows that of the two houses of Congress, the Senate is the more corrupt one, the one that most slavishly serves the interests of the fossil fuel barons.

It's not just the states that are pro-renewable - the U.S. military has a contingent that supports renewable energy (and another contingent that fights this and supports coal). Here's a good article on that:

US Army gets eco-conscious, preps mega solar plant, Register UK

The Army said it's enlisting several big new energy projects to promote less energy waste in local and overseas bases. Among its ambitions are rolling out a fleet of electric vehicles, establishing biomass fuel demonstrations at select Army posts, and constructing what could be one of the most powerful solar power plants in the world.

"We spend over $3bn every year on energy and the majority of it is spent on our installations. We can significantly reduce our energy consumption by partnering within government and with the private sector to capitalize on the great strides in proven technology that have been developed and implemented across the country," said Secretary of the Army Pete Geren.


The bottom line is that fossil fuel PR claims about solar not being effective are just nonsense. The other point is that the main barrier to a country-wide renewable energy boom is now our corrupt federal government.

The Supreme Court, for example, recently tossed out most of the judgment against ExxonMob for the Valdez disaster, which was soft pedaled by Sarah Palin ("now we have closure").

The Congress has refused to take any meaningful action on renewable energy, with every single positive bill being sabotaged by some Democratic tool of the coal or oil lobby, working in cahoots with the entire membership of the Greedy Old Party.

For example, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is loaded up with members from coal states, and is led by Jeff Bingaman, a vocal advocate of coal (but not solar). New Mexico could have a booming solar economy - but thanks to their politicians, that's not happening.

The executive branch is mostly made up of ex-oil industry executives. They started a war in Iraq, and created policies that resulted in world-record profits for their cronies at Exxon, BP, Chevron, etc.

The problem is that federal government has become a undemocratic tool of the robber barons, and that's mostly due to our system of legalized bribery, i.e. "campaign financing".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Solar Power Is Truly Viable - Then Prove It With a Real World Community
Posted by: opmoc on Oct 30, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course solar power works - but it only works by utilising an area of land (or sea) significantly larger than the community it supports - lives in.

Of course solar power can support an entire World Population - because it did for many thousands of years. However the size of that population was a miniscule fraction of today's.

If solar power works - then take a small remote island - on or near the equator that supports around 100 people in a comfortable life style (currently using conventional energy) and turn that conventional energy off.

See how much space is required - using solar panels, windmills, biomass - or whatever alternative energy you like....

To provide air-conditioning, desalianation and sufficient power to run the cooking facilities, computers together with the cottage industry of pottery (which is rather energy intensive) that is used to trade with the suppliers of the wind mills and solar panels (or build these things yourself on the island)

You also will need space for growing food - and the island must maintain much of its original appearance and also support normal historical levels of wildlife.

See how many beach bungalow's and humans can be supported.

Take another similar island and install a small nuclear power station of the type used on decommissioned US Navy ships.

See how you get on.

Or you could read

The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World by Howard C. Hayden

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power never works on calm days and solar never works at night.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 30, 2008 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest. This is the full life cycle CO2 output. There are no hidden CO2 outputs.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can't without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let's get it done.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price. This is the full and total price. There are no hidden costs. There are no
subsidies. There are no tricks. 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour is all of it.
[Supposed subsidies cover the cost caused by irrational protesters. That is a cost
of civil order, not a cost of nuclear power. The price would be lower if the safety
level were lowered to equal other sources of electricity.]

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have enough nuclear fuel for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 30, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
according to
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby. "Breeding" fissionable
fuel and recycling nuclear fuel greatly extends the supply. We have many
possible uranium mines that we haven't started mining. The reasons we are not
doing so are political and psychological. Most people have an irrational fear of
anything nuclear caused by coal industry propaganda. Rather than waste fuel by
putting it in Yucca Mountain, we should be recycling.

Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton [hydrogen]. That would be a hydrogen atom. An
oxygen atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other
nuclei also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146
neutrons. If it has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238.
Nuclear fuel is only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing
energy. The rest is U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a
neutron is captured by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the
nucleus and the atom split approximately in half and 2 or 3 neutrons are released
because the 2 smaller nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus
captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The
U238 thus becomes Plutonium 239 [Pu239]. In a power reactor, the Pu239
quickly captures another neutron, becoming Pu240. Pu240 is useless for making
bombs, which is why governments that have plutonium bombs have their own
special reactors to make Pu239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that
plutonium is a good fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more
fissionable uranium. If a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an
electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes
U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly. In the
US, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is replaced each
year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the percentage of
fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process, plutonium may be
removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium to the fuel, we can
make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains more than twice as
much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium into uranium. By
reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries long fuel supply.

The products of fission are also removed when fuel is reprocessed. These are just
other atoms that are no longer useful as fuel. The quantity is very small.
We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the correct percentage of
fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we go through the
expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel load. This
greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not reprocessing
nuclear fuel for political reasons. France reprocesses fuel and France has a
nuclear waste repository.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the coal companies know that Alternet doesn't:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 30, 2008 10:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. If you quit being afraid of
nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind,
solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy.
ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal
out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So
here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not
if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo
"Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and
live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around "Sapiens" because it
is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is
clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

PS: My numbers are correct. Nuclear is the cheapest and safest source of
electricity. Nuclear life cycle CO2 output is the lowest per kilowatt hour because
it takes a huge number of windmills or solar collectors or wave machines or
whatever to produce the same power as a nuclear power plant. All of those
windmills or whatever have manufacturing processes that make CO2. Hydro
power requires an enormous amount of concrete. The first step in making
concrete is heating limestone to drive off the CO2. That is one of the sources of
CO2 from hydro power. The price for electricity for the various sources of
power include the total life cycle costs. The cost to build the reactor is not much
different from the cost to build a coal fired power plant and the money comes
from the same source. Whoever would pay for
the reactor is the same person who would pay for the coal burner. LOOK at the
price for the electricity. It is the total life cycle cost. Nuclear is the cheapest and
the only full time replacement for coal. Nuclear power would be much cheaper
than it is if nuclear were allowed to be as unsafe as the other sources of power.
Nuclear power plants are self-insured. Tax money is NOT involved and would
not be mentioned if it were not for the civil disturbances caused by coal company
shills, alias protesters. The nuclear industry needs and deserves protection from
people who are obviously either mentally ill or very misinformed. When tax
money is mentioned with respect to nuclear power, the money is the extra money
that is wasted because of pointless protests.

I am a retired Department of the Army scientist and engineer.

There is NO SUCH THING as nuclear waste. There is fuel that is being wasted
for political reasons and because the coal industry has driven you paranoid. The
coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow they
receive as long as you remain in your present mental state. If you remain in your
present paranoid state and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear, we all die,
as I said before. The cure for your present mental state is for you to go to
college and get a 4 year degree in a hard science [physics or chemistry] or
engineering, or for Americans to start acting like the French with respect to
nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Another thing the coal companies know Posted by: Iconoclast421
I understand palin said~~~~
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Oct 31, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Won't we just use up the sun's light and it will always be dark?
We ought to depend more on ANWR oil."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Believe it or not, solar and wind actually help Big Oil
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 31, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is sad that the oil companies do not fully understand this yet, but they are slowly beginning to realize that its true. Solar and wind really do benefit big oil and big coal. The key to understanding how this works is to look at what has happened to oil prices over the last couple months. They're collapsing. The oil companies are going to lose billions of dollars. This happens because oil demand is so volatile. However, if the big fossil fuel companies were selling their energy to build and run solar panel and windmill factories, instead of gas stations, it would bring about much greater price stablity. Price stability maximizes consumption and profit.

And then you have Jevons Paradox, which ensures that demand for oil and coal will stay strong even with high percentage of PHEVs.

Solar and wind help to create a buffer that prevents the type of catastrophic demand destruction we are seeing now. Because oil demand is falling so rapidly, capex plans are being scrapped. Projects that were economical are going to end up losing money.

The reason solar and wind help to create a buffer is because no matter what is happening with the economy, we can keep production of grid capacity increasing. Because so much of our fossil fuel consumption is modularized and individualized (the car, home heating, etc) you end up with these huge swings in demand based on economic conditions. But if more fossil fuels go towards solar and wind, then it will take away some of the magnitude of the demand swings. Because fossil fuel demand from the solar and wind factories will be stable regardless of how many times Mrs soccer mom is filling up her minivan.

In an ideal world, ALL fossil fuel production would go towards the production of goods, and NONE would go towards directly fueling a vehicle.

For example, we would use oil and coal to build solar panels and windmills and batteries and electric motors, instead of building internal combustion engines and fueling them. Once the upfront costs are paid, fossil fuels are only required in the maintenance of a PHEV (new tires, etc)

As another even simpler example, we use lots of fossil fuels to build and then power homes. Why not use more fossil fuels to build better insulted homes, with solar panels and a windmill? Same fossil fuel cost, except the demand is all upfront and immediate. Big Oil and Big Coal should prefer it that way. And you can queue up projects so that demand will always be constant, and at maximum, thus maximizing profits. Note that even maintenance items, such as tires, could also be queued up so as to maximize production and demand. That is of course, in an ideal world...

In the real world, most oil is simply pulled out of the ground to be burned up as fuel in a process that is only 25% efficient. It's odd, that's for sure. And its unsustainable. There is no guarantee that oil prices will ever reach their true value, because the violence of the economic contractions will be so severe that prices will never be allowed to stay high for very long. However, in a world where ALL fossil fuel production went towards building products, we'd see energy prices strong and stable and the potential for very high prices would exist. We've already seen a doubling of GDP vs unit of fossil fuel consumed ove rthe last 30 years. There is no reason to think that we cant double that figure again, in half the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]