Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (43 page)

The logging camp where I grew up was a company town of about 60 people and 20 buildings. Because there was an organization it was possible to install a central generator and to build a small grid to service all the buildings. The camp mechanic was in charge of running and repairing the system, which allowed the rest of us to go about our business. In the early years the generator was used mainly for light to read and work by and to provide power for the machine shop. At 10 to 10 each evening, the lights blinked twice, warning us that the plant would be turned off in 10 minutes. This allowed the nighthawks time to light their gas lanterns. Eventually larger generators were purchased, with a back-up plant in case of breakdown, and then the power was on 24 hours. This allowed the use of electric fridges and freezers, electric light whenever you wanted it, and electric appliances like toasters and washing machines. The good life had arrived, but not for the fishing village, where it was still everyone for themselves.

While those of us in the logging camp enjoyed 24-hour power for 20 years the folks in the fishing village carried on with their independent ways. Then in 1991 I joined a small delegation from Winter Harbour before the British Columbia Utilities Commission. We explained that the hard-working people of our village had provided millions of dollars worth of fish and timber into the economy and had paid their taxes faithfully. For this reason, we argued, Winter Harbour should finally be connected to the provincial electric grid. The Commission found in our favor, so long as we paid a higher rate to cover part of the cost of the transmission line. Not one resident, especially in the fishing village, minded paying the premium for the seven years it took to retire the debt. Even at three times the regular rate it was a lot less expensive than a gasoline or diesel generator. And there was the blessed convenience of power on demand at the flick of a switch. But the really pleasant surprise was the sound of silence now that 20 or more generators no longer howled day and night, drowning out birdsong and frogs croaking in the roadside ditches.

More recently, Eileen and I bought a village lot and built a cottage in the town of Cabo Pulmo on the Baja Peninsula of Mexico. The village of about 100 homes and cottages is off the grid with no electricity or phone lines. Trust Eileen and me to pick a place that reminds us of our Winter Harbour home, complete with a rough gravel road to get there. There are a few native Mexicans in Cabo Pulmo, mostly ranchers and their families, some of whom run restaurants, diving shops, and other businesses that cater to tourists. Most of the homes are owned by Americans and a few Canadians who visit Cabo Pulmo for a few weeks or months each year. Some have retired there.

Very few, if any, of the Mexican homes are equipped with solar panels for electricity. They can’t afford the $10,000 cost of a typical system that includes the solar panels, inverters, and storage batteries. They can buy a two-kilowatt gasoline generator for under $500. That’s all they need for power tools, lights at night, and a TV set, but it does not allow refrigeration and it makes for a noisy lifestyle. Ice is imported by truck to keep meat and produce fresh in big coolers.

Nearly all the homes owned by visitors and expatriates have solar systems that provide 24-hour power to run lights, highly efficient refrigerators with freezers, satellite Internet, sewage treatment systems, mini-stereos, espresso machines, and blenders. They can afford solar panels because they are relatively wealthy people from very wealthy countries. But it has become clear to me that it is a very romantic notion that solar power is the answer for people in developing countries. It is so much more expensive than every other option that there is no way it can provide widespread electrification. It is so important to remember that sustainability includes economics as well as the environmental and social priorities. A more cost-effective approach than solar panels is required if the 1.6 billion people without electricity are to enjoy a better life.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Electricity-Producing Technologies

The previous section began to bring into focus the fact that every energy technology has strengths and weaknesses. While solar electricity is quiet and clean, it costs 5 to 10 times more than most other electricity-generating technologies. Seeing that energy is required for nearly all our goods and services, it is obvious that if energy costs more, then goods and services will cost more. This does not seem to matter to activists who think solar and other “renewable” technologies are somehow morally superior to other forms of energy, and therefore a bargain at any price. And their attitude indicates they don’t really care how much energy costs, even to people who are already struggling.

Solar Electric Energy

It is easy to find glowing reports from promoters who claim that both solar and wind energy are not prohibitively expensive and prices will come down dramatically in the future. Anton Milner, the spokesperson for the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, claims, “Europe will save 300 billion Euros by switching to 12 percent of solar power by 2020.” This is due, he says, “to the fact that solar installations are cheaper than any nuclear or coal facility, and that sunshine is free”.
[12]
Perhaps he means a small solar installation costs less than a nuclear plant that produces more than 100 times as much energy. Regardless, it is a reckless statement and holds no truth.

I don’t mean to beat up on Bobby Kennedy Jr. all the time, but at least it’s a change from picking on Greenpeace. The blurb announcing his keynote presentation to the 2009 Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, California, states, “Mr. Kennedy argues a sophisticated, well-crafted energy policy will help sharpen American competitiveness while reducing energy costs and our national debt and offers a bold vision to restore U.S. economic might, safeguard our environment, and reestablish America’s role as an exemplary nation.” He has a lot of nerve implying solar energy will “reduce energy costs” and help “sharpen American competitiveness.” It is so preposterous it leaves one short of breath. Does he realize the Chinese are producing most of the world’s solar panels but can hardly afford to use them themselves? And that when they do use them they can just tack the price onto the ones they sell to wealthy countries where they are subsidized to the hilt?

In 2008, China exported 98 percent of the solar panels it manufactured. Most of these panels were sent to Germany, Spain, the U.S., and Japan, rich counties that can “afford” to squander taxpayers’ money to subsidize ridiculously expensive, politically correct solar technology. This has led to the adoption, in 2009, of a 70 percent subsidy for large solar installations in China in order to get some domestic uptake of the technology.
[13]
I’m not holding my breath; it might take a 90 percent subsidy to get anything moving.

One of the strengths of solar power is it tends to track the demand for electricity in the summer when the air conditioning load is highest. The longest, sunniest, and therefore hottest days are the best days for solar panels. If they were able to produce electricity at a reasonable cost, they would be a welcome addition to the grid. This is why it makes sense to put research and development funds into solar technology. A breakthrough in price would be an important advance.

In addition to its much higher cost, solar electric power is also intermittent and unreliable. It does not work at night, during cloudy days or cloudy periods, or in the early morning or late afternoon when the sun is low in the sky. In other words, solar panels are automatically powerless for about 16 out of 24 hours on average during the year, or two-thirds of the time, even when there are no clouds. Depending on the cloudiness of the location where the solar panels are installed, they may actually provide useful power for only 15 percent of the time over the year.

The term
capacity factor
is used to describe the amount of electricity actually produced compared to the potential if the generator were operating at 100 percent of its capacity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Large baseload power plants, such as coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, typically have capacity factors of 90 percent or higher as they run continuously, except for repairs and refueling in the case of nuclear power plants.

An analysis of 12 large solar installations in the United Kingdom concludes they have an average capacity factor of 7 percent. That is the main reason why, at the standard cost of electricity in the U.K., it will take between 45 and 290 years to pay for these systems.
[14]
Not even solar panels last that long. It doesn’t take a genius to realize solar power is a waste of good money on the grid. In the words of a sustainability director in one of the five New York boroughs, solar panels are a “wealth-destroying technology.” If quiet, sustainable, and clean are the main criteria then there are other, more cost-effective technologies that can deliver much more energy at lower cost and with even fewer emissions. Let’s look at some real examples of the prices consumers are being charged for solar electricity.

In 2004 the government of Germany passed the
Renewable Energy Sources Act
, requiring electrical utilities to pay a fixed price for solar energy. It did so to encourage individuals and companies to buy solar panels, install them on rooftops, and connect them to the national grid.

The price utilities must pay for solar energy is called a “feed-in-tariff.” The average price for rooftop solar is 50 euro cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), or about 70 US cents per kWh. (A kilowatt-hour is the amount of electricity required to power 10 100-watt lightbulbs, or 40 compact fluorescent bulbs of the same brightness for one hour.) This does not include the delivery cost over transmission lines to the eventual consumer. Consider that coal and nuclear energy are sold into the grid for less than 5 US cents per kWh on average across the United States; you can calculate that German solar energy costs 14 times as much as U.S. coal and nuclear power. Over the past decade billions of dollars have been invested in solar power and yet today it produces less than 1 percent of Germany’s electricity at a cost of over US$3 billion per year. A wise German would hope the percentage of solar stays below 1 percent.

Feed-in-tariff laws have now been enacted in France, Spain, Italy, and Greece as solar hysteria continues to grip the European community. But there is a growing realization that the pace of solar installations can’t be sustained at recent levels. In late 2008 Spain reduced the feed-in-tariff to 46 US cents per kWh and placed a cap on the amount of new installations for 2009. This is clearly due to the unsustainable cost increases solar energy imposes on electricity prices.

The only jurisdictions in North America to have introduced feed-in-tariffs are Ontario and California. In Ontario, the
Green Energy Act
of 2009 required initially that the electrical utilities pay 42 cents per kWh, about half the German rate. The average cost of electricity for residences in Ontario is 7 cents per kWh. So at 42 cents solar is seven times more expensive than the average cost of electricity.

Predictably, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association rejected the original 42-cent rate as insufficient. They are correct that it is not possible to pay back the investment in a reasonable time at 42 cents. They lobbied actively for a rate as high as 86 cents per kWh, more than double the legislated price. In their aptly named document, “Renewables Without Limits,” they claim it is not possible to make a profit on solar energy unless it is priced 15 times higher than the average cost of power.
[15]
They succeeded in getting the government to raise the price for solar to up to 80.2 cents, nearly 14 times the cost of conventional power.
[16]
And they did so in all seriousness as if this was obviously the right thing to do. It was a case of unbridled moral certitude that negated any concern for cost to the economy or human welfare. It was a complete rejection of competition in the market and a blind (or not so blind) adherence to feel-good policies that will surely pave the road to hell with good intentions.

As of early 2009, California was the only state in the U.S. to adopt a feed-in-tariff for solar energy. The renewable energy community has declared it a failure from the start because it offers only up to 31 US cents per kWh.
[17]
Even in one of the sunniest states in the country, five times the rate for conventional baseload power won’t support intermittent and unreliable solar energy.

Most U.S. states have shied away from feed-in-tariffs, possibly because the obviously inflated cost would result in consumer outrage. Instead, several states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs), a bureaucratic term that the average person has never heard of, never mind knows what it means. I would love to see Jay Leno out on the sidewalk asking people what they thought of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The word
energy
is entirely absent, as if there is a standard for renewable portfolios. A more understandable term would be Renewable Energy Mandates, or Renewable Energy Dictates because what it means is that government has forced the utilities to acquire a certain percentage of their electricity from approved renewable technologies, almost regardless of price. But large-scale hydroelectric power, by far the most important renewable electricity source in the U.S., and the world, is not accepted as part of most states’ Renewable Portfolio Standards. That’s because many activists don’t like dams and they have lobbied successfully to exclude the most important renewable electricity technology from the renewable category. This in itself makes a mockery of the policy.