It takes energy to make energy

For more than 15 years, I have been producing solar energy in my office in Ossining. To explain ”“ inside a small clear plastic globe about three inches across, a weather vane-like system has been whirring away on my desk whenever the sun hits it. Even with a slight cloud cover it manages to respond to the largest star in the universe. Of course, the energy is useless in that form but it does provide a vivid example of the power of the sun and how connected we are. One wonders over 15 years how many kilowatts my little solar energy collector might have produced.

Finally, Silicon Valley, where the money and brains are, is starting to pay attention to the power of the sun. As Paul Saffo, an associate engineering professor at Stanford says, “A solar cell is a just a big specialized chip, so everything we”™ve learned about making chips applies.” Something to think about. Another solar observation ”“ in the mid-70”™s, on a trip to Jerusalem, I observed from David”™s Tower that nearly all of the buildings, small hovels to major constructions, had solar collectors on the roofs. Did the Israelis know something 33 years ago that we have yet to discover?

Wind power is also enjoying a major global boost in support. With the price of a barrel of oil now comfortably hovering around $100, having begun the last year at around $50, the renewables are looking better and better. However, there are serious hurdles. Wind turbines are in short supply, but promising to catch up in the near future. Further, and more troubling, wind developers tend to favor locations that guarantee the most generous and stable subsidies, instead of where wind may generate the most electricity. As someone has said “Investment will go where there is the security and profitability.” And that raises a fundamental question: How are subsidies doled out to energy producers? What determines which energy producer will attract scarce federal dollars?

After the several articles in which I dealt with the unintended consequences of politically motivated energy decisions such as the overwhelming support of the federal government for ethanol, it should be no surprise that wind, solar, geothermal and other alternative energy sources are at the bottom of the list and therefore not able to compete fairly with ethanol, petroleum and of course, nuclear subsidies. Here are the latest (2006) figures according to Federal Fiscal Subsidies to Energy (source: www.earthtrack.net), clearly revealing that the stated goals of the Federal Government do not square with where the money actually goes. For starters, in spite of the astronomical profits being raked in by the oil and gas industries they still receive $39 billion annually, or 52 percent of the total energy subsidies every year. Further, the coal industry is given $6 billion, 10 percent of the total, presumably designed to encourage the development of a clean coal product, which to this day has not proven to be clean given its huge CO2 output.

The nuclear industry gets $9 billion per year. Ethanol receives $6 billion, the same amount accorded all the other renewable fuel sources, those that might actually reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), such as wind, solar, geothermal. In other words, the connection between the rate of support and its efficiency is an inverse relationship ”“ the most polluting energy producers receive by far the most federal money. Meanwhile, the government is pushing renewables as an answer to dependence on foreign oil, but that goal does not translate into adequate funds.

What do these numbers tell us? The same thing that has been discussed in prior columns ”“ decisions are currently being made on the basis of political power, not on the basis of the most efficient power-producing mode. We are way overdue to have a serious national nonpartisan discussion on where the federal government should be putting its limited funds in order to minimize the future economic and social hit of unaffordable oil.

A more in-depth discussion of nuclear power needs to be included here given the interest in the future of the Indian Point nuclear plants. As already pointed out this nuclear energy is one of the favored ones in terms of federal support. It is now riding on its CO2-free reputation to gain even more supporters, which now includes, incredibly, some environmentalists. We need to look at more closely at this heavily subsidized mode of electricity production. Nuclear power has the unfortunate proclivity to produce an intensely dangerous and mounting pile of radioactive waste which to this point is still stored on the grounds of the plants that produced it. Many have questioned how European countries, who depend heavily on nuclear power, manage to deal with their waste. The rules are different in Europe. Those reactor owners can reprocess the waste into plutonium which can then be reused to gain even more energy from the spent fuel rods. In this country, reprocessing is illegal because when you produce plutonium you produce bomb material and to this point there seems to be no safe way to keep it out of the wrong hands. Spent fuel rods cannot be handled by humans but plutonium can apparently be handled safely by anyone. Thus, our interest in safety has created a stunningly unsafe material that could harm people millions of years into the future.

Next time: a more in-depth look at nuclear energy and its CO2 credentials.