Every study that I have seen shows that to make whatever biofuel you choose that will save 1 gallon of gasoline you will spend more than one gallon of gasoline resulting in a net loss of energy. I saw one particular study (which, of course, I cannot find online now) which showed that the ethanol program was just useful as a crop subsidy but the fuel used in the production is greater than what is saved by what is produced.
Yes the sun is free, the wind is free, but oil is also free and it is cheaper to process it into a useful form. There are Solar (electric power) plants and wind plants and bioplants out there and they just cannot compete with conventional or nuclear plants. (I am not saying it is impossible in the future, just that today it is not the case).
I saw a study about solar generation of electrical energy and it came down to one thing: the electricity produced did not even begin to pay for the use of the land they were using (not to mention the plant and equipment). Land does not come free.
The wind is free and yet steamships displaced sailships very fast even when fuel was much more expensive than today.
Another case in point: My house has solar panels that heat the sanitary water. They were already installed when I bought the house and they work fine with the maintenance I give them. I save a lot of gas for heating etc.
About 5 years ago I thought the system might need a major overhaul and I did an economic study of the whole thing. My conclusion is that here it does not make economic sense to install solar panels as it is cheaper to burn gas to produce that heat, not to mention the hassles of the maintenance of the solar system.
Solar panels may make sense in places (like third world countries) where energy is very expensive and sun is plentiful and the panels may provide energy cheaper than other sources but that ain’t the case in Washington DC.
At that time I had a very interesting exchange with a guy who installs solar systems in this area and I found the file where I kept it. My conclusion was that the natural gas I use to heat water would have to cost three times as much for solar panels to make economic sense.
here is part of the exchange:
[quote]
I also studied the financial yield of investing in a system of solar panels and you will probably not like the result of my analysis which is very contrary to what I thought before.
Assuming a 60 ft2 system like mine costs (I’m guessing) about $3000 to install and delivers 80 therms per year, it does not make economical sense to install. Let us assume a 15 year amortization which I think is a reasonable lifespan. Even at zero interest, the system would have to deliver about $17 /month for me to recover the invested money.
If I invest the $3000 at 8.75% it will bring back $30 every month for 15 years so that the solar system would have to yield more than that value in energy savings to make sense. Delivering less than 7 therm /month it does not come even close to that. Using a gas water heater (which I have anyway) the net cost of that energy would be under $7 (about $1/therm, net). My money will yield four times more if financially invested. If the water heater is electric the difference is not so great but still much in favor of electric power.
A system that yields about 8 MBTU/Yr ($80 - $100 / Yr) would have to cost no more than $800 - $1000 to install to make financial sense. And these figures do not take into account maintenance costs which would make the picture even more favorable to conventional systems.
Maybe in rural locations where there is no gas or electric supply and the cost of these or other forms of energy are much more expensive a system of solar collectors will make sense financially speaking. Or maybe large installations for hotels or other large buildings can be installed at lower cost per unit (square foot of collector, gallon of tank, etc.)
[/unquote]
I will try to find the stuff online about biofuel and solar electricity generation