Uhm, that’s great and all, and very well put. Though I can’t help feeling you’ve been saving that up for a while, it doesn’t really respond to my underlying point: that society is willing to make trades between cost/efficiency on one hand, and desirable policy outcomes on the other.
Did the governor of Massachusetts propose that there be a ban on nighttime use of electricity?
I’ve got this crazy idea that just… might… work. In general, we prioritize the use of cleaner energy production. When that prioritization is not feasible, we use legacy energy production. That way solar energy is used as much as possible, and coal use minimized during the daytime; then at night, more coal is used.
Call me completely insane, but that scheme seems a little better than telling everyone not to watch TV at night.
What does that have to do with solar power not being cost effective in New England?
As it was explained before, solar is not a solution that is applied alone:
And it is clear that you do not know when energy demands are higher.
http://www.getsolar.com/commercial_why-solar-makes-good-business-sense.php
Your example proves that society is willing to say that it will make trades between cost/efficiency and desirable policy outcomes. That we are truly willing to do it is an entirely different matter.
There’s a much better argument to be made that policy follows financial realities. Take for instance the idea that the Civil War took place when it did because slavery was starting to become fiscally unnecessary. Up until that point in time, even those who were morally against it were stuck with it because anything else would have destroyed the economy. Or, take for example the recent failure of the Copenhagen Climate Conference to accomplish anything, or the failure of any country which signed the Kyoto treaty to actually meet their targets. The technology to go green needs to be at least decently cost effective to get anyone to switch to it. Until that point, you can get up and talk big all you want, but I think that history proves that the realities of politics will make that all end up as bluster until the technologies appear at a price that’s affordable and don’t require anything but the most token of adaptations to any comparative drawbacks.
Fair enough…you are completely insane. I agree with you, btw, but you did ask to be called completely insane.
Depends. Are you trying for permanent green, or a sort of transitory green? I THINK you could basically tattoo someone completely green (including a new technique for tattooing the eyeballs), but it would probably be expensive, time consuming and painful, and I’m unsure if it would fade with time (my guess, based on my own tattoos is that it would). However, if you just wanted to make someone green for a few days or a week or so, there are all kinds of dyes that would probably work (with green contacts and mouthwash), and that would work pretty well in a pinch.
However, I just wanted to point out that Kermit says it’s not always easy, being green…
-XT
Cost effectiveness depends in part on what you are using the generated energy for (solar water heating systems, for example, are different than solar electricity generation) and the state of the technology. It’s quite a leap to say “never” - there are some promising new solar technologies that may make electrical generation from solar much more cost-effective.
What, is that star 93 million miles away sending you a monthly bill? No, solar costs nothing to “generate”, the energy falls on the planet whether we harvest it or not. What costs money is making the devices to capture it - which is what I think you meant, but you expressed it in a fairly sloppy manner.
Conversion between DC and AC is old hat, and solar is hardly the only circumstance where it is used. This is quite surmountable.
No, no solar at night but depending on the technology used it may well be possible to generate some power even on cloudy/overcast days where sufficient daylight is still getting through. After all, you can still see in the daytime when it’s cloudy (usually), right? Of course, the energy gathering gets a lot less efficient when that happens.
Boy, I sure am glad someone cleared that up.
If only “a certain percentage” of power must be drawn from solar, I don’t see how cloudiness and night are relevent. The other sources can supply when the solar power supplies wane.
Especially since ‘a certain percentage’ is currently, what? 1%? Maybe a touch more? And through herculean effort we MIGHT be able to get it to, what? 10% tops? So, yeah…cloudiness or night aren’t particularly relevant, considering solar will probably never be more than an adjunct to our total energy mix (though an important one, IMHO).
It really isn’t easy, being green…especially when ‘nuclear’ is a naughty word…
-XT
It was in response to the OP’s title Can You Force People to Be “Green”?, which is the essence of his question. I suppose I could have extrapolated but in the morning without coffee pithy comments are all I have the juice for.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about the general principle that government frequently intervenes to make certain behaviors more or less costly in order to achieve some policy goal, or on the specific question of solar power.
On the broader question, of course we are willing to do this as a society. Government subsidizes huge swaths of transactions to achieve policy goals that may or may not end up looking good on an accounting ledger: mortgage interest deduction, subsidies for hybrid cars, earned income tax credit, tax credits for buying Energy Star appliances and windows, cash for clunkers, etc. The list would go on for ages and ages.
On the narrow question of solar power, I think it is clear that society is willing to do more to make the country more “green,” but the limits of what we are willing to pay for that goal are not yet clear. It is also clear that some countries are willing to do more than others – for example, contrary to your statement, there are a number of countries who have met targets, but I believe the reasons are generally more due to matters of history rather than concerted policy efforts.
But you are right, government cannot hope to completely pay for the greening effort, it just doesn’t have enough money. The market has to take over at some point.
Even with technology advancing to where solar can break even, that’s still assuming good conditions for it. In Arizona, say, where the skies are almost never cloudy and where a major draw on power is from air conditioners which need to run most precisely when it’s most sunny, solar power might make sense. In cooler, cloudier Massachusetts, though, it’s still a net loss. And mandating something that’s a net loss is not a good idea.
Now, it might make sense to require that some percentage come from sources other than fossil fuels. There are other alternative energy technologies right now that are a lot more practical than solar, and the power companies would be free to pick whichever of those technologies suits their needs best. Maybe, in fifty years, solar will even have progressed to the point where it’s most practical. But it’s not, yet.
Like the police? Or libraries? Or catalytic converters? Or particulate matter pollution regulations? Again, the government does tons of stuff that doesn’t necessarily make money. It’s a matter of how much the taxpayers are willing to pay to insure safe streets, free books, cleaner air, or, in the OP’s case, less greenhouse gas emissions.
I don’t think it’s really a matter of how much the tax payers are willing to pay, as that it’s completely unrealistic to try and force solar (which I believe was the point Chronos was addressing) past a certain point. It’s just not realistically going to be a viable alternative for more than a small fraction of our energy needs, regardless of the amount of resources you can pour into it. This isn’t to say that it’s not worthwhile to continue to develop, just that, as things exist today, there is only so much that can realistically be squeezed out of it. Wind to for that matter. Or hydroelectric. Or geothermal.
-XT
Haven’t you people ever heard of batteries? I hear they store electricity for use at night.
You are joking, right?
-XT
One hopes. The real joke, of course, is that people were wondering how we were going to power our nightlights given the 2% loss of total power caused by solar shutting down for the night.
Ack, that’s easy! Step 1: What you do is you build a really big wooden badger, with wheels, and then…
…Step 10: Kick back and rake in the power, since the sun shines for free! See? Simple. 
-XT
Maybe that’s what he meant, but that’s not what he said. He said “mandating something that’s a net loss is not a good idea.”
But the word “realistically” depends to a significant degree on how much we are willing to spend. Two examples. Let’s say we want to go to Mars. Fine, it’ll cost, say, $100 billion and 20 years. But if we want to go to Mars in 15 years, is it realistic? It can be if we’re willing to spend, say, $400 billion. If we want to go in 5 years, well, that’s just not possible at any price.
Second example. Here in Washington, DC, you can buy electricity service with around 2% renewable sources for around 11 cents a kilowatt hour. If you want to buy a plan in which your residence “consumes” only 100% wind power-generated electricity, you can buy that – it costs 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour. The “realisticness” of bringing more windpower to bear is limited by how many people will pay a premium for it, how much spare wind there is in limited areas, and how much investment has been made in the infrastructure. The more money we’re willing to pay, while we will never get to 100% renewable, more things become possible – even not-so-good ideas like this.
