# Was everything I believed about energy wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865 "2013-05-20T20:27:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/1 "2013-05-20T20:27:43Z")
During my college years–I started in 2000–I believed a lot of things about the energy industry. Generally speaking, my beliefs could be summarized as fossil fuels=bad, renewable energy sources=good. When I look back from the vantage point of 13 years, it seems as if everything I once believed has turned out to be false. \*\* Incorrect belief #1: Hydrogen cars will soon be here.\*\* By 2000, Democratic legislators in California and the Northeast [boldly took the initiative](http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html) on this one. They passed laws stating that by 2003, 10% of all cars sold in those states must be zero-emissions, and everyone understood this to mean hydrogen fuel cells. The target date has come and gone and there are no hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road, other than expensive prototypes. Lawsuits by car companies and the Bush Administration played a role, but the main problem was that the technology which these politicians were trying to will into existence just didn’t arrive. [Certain sources](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-hydrogen-car-running-on-empty) keep saying that hydrogen will get here, but it never actually does. **Incorrect belief #2: Biofuels will be awesome.** Every time a major magazine had a series about the energy sources of the future there was a big article about the coming biofuel revolution, usually coming right after the article about the coming hydrogen car revolution. On this issue, at least, it’s true that biofuel usage has gone up, chiefly because of government subsidies and requirements. However, almost everyone seems to agree with some fellow named Cecil Adams when he wrote, “The full story seems to be that ethanol subsidies are a complete waste.” Corn ethanol is not the only biofuel misfire. Only the true policy wonks know about [the cellulose ethanol mandate](http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/biofuelsbiorefining_general/proposed-biofuel-mandates-for-2012-and-the-blend-wall/). The law requires production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstock plants. The amount are small at present but scheduled to soar in coming years. The problem is basically the same as for hydrogen cars: the technology doesn’t exist. Legislators are once again butting up against inconvenient scientific facts. **Incorrect belief #3: Solar and wind will take over electric production.** A July 2002 cover story in _Mother Jones_ assured me that wind power was ready to make its big move and become a major part of electricity production, but it was merely reflecting conventional wisdom at that point. Everyone was sure that the wind and its sibling, the Sun, would soon be supplying a big chunk of our electricity. Years later, wind and solar [aren’t doing very well](https://images.angelpub.com/2012/27/15166/solar-energy-76.jpg). The fact that _Mother Jones_ and co. payed little attention to was that these sources are only worth building when they’re heavily subsidized or required by law. When the economic good times are rolling, government are willing to give such subsidies and requirements, but when the economy goes south they’re among the first things on the chopping block. [Many European nations](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/21/europe-renewable-energy/2006245/) have cut back on subsidies. So have many American states. Without the subsidies, the wind and solar industries have little hope of growing. \*\* Incorrect belief #4: Peak Oil will force us to switch from oil to other energy sources.\*\* I’ve read countless [books](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/21/europe-renewable-energy/2006245/), articles, blogs, and message board posts explaining how we’re absolutely sure that Peak Oil is real and either soon will be here or already is. Oil production was going to go down, down, down and there was nothing that anyone could do about it. Today oil production in the USA is [higher](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZeBk6vqWQSM/UB70jT5PEQI/AAAAAAAABI0/51n6U_tbMRM/s1600/US-Average-Annual-Oil-Production-2000-2012.png) than it was when most of that stuff was written. Even liberal magazines are now [explaining](http://energypolicyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/atlantic-cover.jpg) why we’ll never run out of oil. **Incorrect belief #5: We must move away from fossil fuels because of global warming.** Carbon emissions in the USA have been trending upwards since forever. But in the past 5 years suddenly the [trend](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.08.01/emissions_p2.png) has turned downward. A triumph of solar, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, hydrogen cars, carbon capture & storage, bicycling, mass transit, or anything else promoted by environmentalists? No. It’s a triumph of the one thing environmentalists hate most at the moment: natural gas from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/2 "2013-05-20T20:35:12Z")
While you put forth that these are things you solidly believed in until recently, I can’t seem to recall much in your postings here over the years that show this to be the case. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/3 "2013-05-20T21:40:58Z")
Some of your beliefs are correct; some are incorrect. 1. Hydrogen cars soon being here definitely an incorrect belief. 2. Biofuels awesome is definitely incorrect. They will be useful in niche applications. 3. Solar and wind. The price of both is substantially decreasing (we are not talking about subsidies) each year. The cost of fossil fuels and nuclear is increasing. So at some point solar and wind will be cheaper than alternatives–and usage will rapidly increase. There is still the problem of electricity storage so I don’t see solar/wind going to 100% of electricity. 4. Peak oil. While the world will never run out of oil in a technical sense, the price will get higher and higher (and too high for most people) and the amount pumped will go lower and lower. Fracking is a temporary cure. Production at traditional oil fields declines something like 5% to 8% each year. Production at fracking wells declines at 40% or so a year. 5. Global warming. What matters is not how much carbon emissions the U.S. is producing but how much the whole world is producing. And the amount the rest of the world is producing is growing rapidly (partly due to economic growth in these areas, partly due to the loss of manufacturing from the U.S. and Western Europe to China, et al) The best site to keep up with these issues is the Oil Drum: [http://www.theoildrum.com/](http://www.theoildrum.com/) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/4 "2013-05-20T21:53:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Incorrect belief #1: Hydrogen cars will soon be here. By 2000, Democratic legislators in California and the Northeast boldly took the initiative on this one. They passed laws stating that by 2003, 10% of all cars sold in those states must be zero-emissions, and everyone understood this to mean hydrogen fuel cells. The target date has come and gone and there are no hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road, other than expensive prototypes. Lawsuits by car companies and the Bush Administration played a role, but the main problem was that the technology which these politicians were trying to will into existence just didn’t arrive. Certain sources keep saying that hydrogen will get here, but it never actually does. There are several problems with hydrogen. One is that hydrogen is not a fuel source, but instead a fuel carrier. The other is that you’d need to build a hydrogen based infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel cells. That means a fairly substantial initial capital outlay. Hydrogen also has a variety of storage and use problems. None of this is unsolvable…it’s all just capital and engineering. However and despite folks whining about the price of gas at the pump, the real issue is that it’s still very cheap and plentiful, so why spend the bucks and effort needed to do it when we still have a perfectly workable system today? > [@](#): > > Incorrect belief #2: Biofuels will be awesome. Every time a major magazine had a series about the energy sources of the future there was a big article about the coming biofuel revolution, usually coming right after the article about the coming hydrogen car revolution. On this issue, at least, it’s true that biofuel usage has gone up, chiefly because of government subsidies and requirements. However, almost everyone seems to agree with some fellow named Cecil Adams when he wrote, “The full story seems to be that ethanol subsidies are a complete waste.” Corn ethanol is not the only biofuel misfire. Only the true policy wonks know about the cellulose ethanol mandate. The law requires production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstock plants. The amount are small at present but scheduled to soar in coming years. The problem is basically the same as for hydrogen cars: the technology doesn’t exist. Legislators are once again butting up against inconvenient scientific facts. Again, we don’t need it…yet. > [@](#): > > Incorrect belief #3: Solar and wind will take over electric production. A July 2002 cover story in Mother Jones assured me that wind power was ready to make its big move and become a major part of electricity production, but it was merely reflecting conventional wisdom at that point. Everyone was sure that the wind and its sibling, the Sun, would soon be supplying a big chunk of our electricity. Years later, wind and solar aren’t doing very well. The fact that Mother Jones and co. payed little attention to was that these sources are only worth building when they’re heavily subsidized or required by law. When the economic good times are rolling, government are willing to give such subsidies and requirements, but when the economy goes south they’re among the first things on the chopping block. Many European nations have cut back on subsidies. So have many American states. Without the subsidies, the wind and solar industries have little hope of growing. Solar and wind will never be more than niche sources. But, they will be important niche sources…someday. I think our energy production will be a mix. Nuclear is also in this equation, though it has greater potential than either solar or wind, though obviously less political traction currently. We’ll know folks are serious about carbon emissions when we start seriously looking at nuclear, and realistically look at solar and wind for what they can actually do, as opposed to what folks wish they would do. I’ll hit the other two later, time permitting. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/5 "2013-05-20T22:17:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > While you put forth that these are things you solidly believed in until recently, I can’t seem to recall much in your postings here over the years that show this to be the case. Am I wrong? I don’t think you are. Here’s the OP banging the same drum back in 2009: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15255625&postcount=12](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15255625&postcount=12) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/6 "2013-05-20T22:27:27Z")
I’ve never thought very highly of fake converts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/7 "2013-05-20T22:43:47Z")
No much time here for me, but IIRC, sure, there are complaints about the subsidies in Europe solar being cut, particularly in Germany, but in a GQ thread I found out that that point omits that the government there claimed that the subsidy is not needed because solar is becoming so prevalent that there is no need to subsidize it anymore. I think that is the case as recently there was the hilarious case of Fox news claiming that there was more sun in Germany than the USA! You see, that explains why there is growth in solar power over there now. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/8 "2013-05-20T23:54:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > While you put forth that these are things you solidly believed in until recently, I can’t seem to recall much in your postings here over the years that show this to be the case. Am I wrong? In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=79146) I argued in favor of California’s zero-emissions law that I mentioned in the OP of the current thread. If you search among old GD threads, you can find many other examples where I fought for common environmentalist positions. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/9 "2013-05-21T00:05:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=79146) I argued in favor of California’s zero-emissions law that I mentioned in the OP of the current thread. Really? Barely. All you do is say that the air pollution is bad, and even though it was once worse, that doesn’t mean it’s fine now. That’s hardly a ringing environmentalist statement, much less an argument in favor of a zero-emissions law. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/10 "2013-05-21T00:06:23Z")
Now that I have more time, here is the bit from FOX: [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/fox-news-claims-germany-sunnier-country-us](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/fox-news-claims-germany-sunnier-country-us) > [@](#): > > … > > “What was Germany doing correctly?,” Carlson asked. “Are they just a smaller country, have they make it more feasible–” > “They’re a smaller country,” Joshi answered, “and they’ve got a lot of sun. Right? **They’ve got a lot more sun than we do.** ” > > Well, no. What Germany has a lot of are solar panels. Their solar potential, however, pales in comparison with the U.S.: > > The fact that Germany produces over four times the solar energy as the U.S. has a lot to do with the country’s aggressive solar subsidies, which make U.S. solar subsidies look like peanuts. Yep, the item that is misleading is giving the impression that cuts in subsidies (and they were not complete BTW) means little hope of growth, that is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![slowlearner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@slowlearner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slowlearner)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/11 "2013-05-21T01:25:50Z")
Because we’re humans we’re going to burn every last drop of carbon we can pump dig scoop or somehow finagle out of the ground, and when we’re done the world will be a different place, who could ever think we won’t? Don’t invest long term in beachfront properties… ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/12 "2013-05-21T02:19:56Z")
> [@slowlearner](#): > > Because we’re humans we’re going to burn every last drop of carbon we can pump dig scoop or somehow finagle out of the ground, and when we’re done the world will be a different place, who could ever think we won’t? Don’t invest long term in beachfront properties… Well, what we’re going to do is what is expedient for us personally, and not what is best for the common good or the good of our descendants or the good of the earth’s natural ecosystem. That may be burning the last drop of oil; it might be switching to wind or tide energy. But the motivation will be me, me, me and those whom I personally care about. And the standard will be “What gives me the greatest life?” Gandhi and Mother Teresa have left the building, leaving me and Al Gore to live large. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/13 "2013-05-21T02:37:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **Incorrect belief #5: We must move away from fossil fuels because of global warming.** Carbon emissions in the USA have been trending upwards since forever. But in the past 5 years suddenly the [trend](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.08.01/emissions_p2.png) has turned downward. A triumph of solar, wind, hydroelectric, biofuels, hydrogen cars, carbon capture & storage, bicycling, mass transit, or anything else promoted by environmentalists? No. It’s a triumph of the one thing environmentalists hate most at the moment: natural gas from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Looking around, this is wrong also, I have noticed hate for fracking, but this is not as dire as you are claiming here, it is actually mentioned in passing by you, it is not the gas that is seen as a problem but how we do the extraction. > **[Methane](https://www.edf.org/issue/methane)** > > Natural gas could create environmental and health risks, and wastes energy resource. We're working to make sure these are produced as safely as possible. > [@](#): > > Natural gas can be a beneficial energy resource if produced in a manner that is good for public health and the environment > > **Natural gas is an important and growing part of our nation’s energy portfolio. It emits less greenhouse gases than coal when combusted and avoids mercury and other dangerous air pollutants that come from coal.** It could be a win-win if — and this is a big if — we do it the right way. > [@](#): > > Our team is working on the front lines to ensure that natural gas is produced in a way that safeguards public health and the environment through: > [ul] > [li]Comprehensive disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals[/li][li]Modernization of rules for well construction and operation[/li][li]Systems-based management of wastes and water[/li][li]State and national standards for improving air quality and reducing climate impacts[/li][li]Minimization of land use and community impacts from natural gas development[/li][li]Improving corporate performance[/li][/ul] > > Even with tough standards in place, reducing methane emissions and minimizing environmental risk ultimately depends on industry embracing environmental responsibility. EDF is working with progressive gas companies on model rules for well construction and operation, supporting those in the industry who are forging a better path. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/14 "2013-05-21T13:07:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > During my college years–I started in 2000–I believed a lot of things about the energy industry. Generally speaking, my beliefs could be summarized as fossil fuels=bad, renewable energy sources=good. When I look back from the vantage point of 13 years, it seems as if everything I once believed has turned out to be false. The question in my mind is, which of these things should you have believed in the first place? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Incorrect belief #1: Hydrogen cars will soon be here.\*\* By 2000, Democratic legislators in California and the Northeast [boldly took the initiative](http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html) on this one. They passed laws stating that by 2003, 10% of all cars sold in those states must be zero-emissions, and everyone understood this to mean hydrogen fuel cells. I don’t recall “everyone” understanding this, and your link certainly doesn’t support what you imply it does. Certainly, hydrogen was regarded as one of the possible contenders, but “everyone” knew there were a lot of problems with storing and transporting hydrogen that would need to be solved for it to work. Probably the biggest proponents of hydrogen fuel cells were the fuckups of the Bush Administration. I expect the threads on this board from when the Bushies were pushing it would give you a more accurate idea of what people thought at the time, if you care to dig. > [@](#): > > **Incorrect belief #2: Biofuels will be awesome.** Every time a major magazine had a series about the energy sources of the future there was a big article about the coming biofuel revolution “Major magazine” - there’s your problem. There’s a big difference between what shows up in a major magazine, and what’s got any scientific consensus behind it. Major magazines back in the 1970s had cover stories about global cooling, which even then was a speculative idea at best. And George Will has been using that ever since as an excuse for climate change denial because ‘not that long ago scientists believed that the world was cooling, so why should we believe them now that they say it’s warming?’ A magazine can always find the most optimistic semi-credible booster of _anything_ to make a splash when it wants. Anyhow, Cecil concisely rebutted the biofuel argument, as you point out, while you were still in college. And based on his piece, the basics of that argument were known to scientists a couple decades earlier. Even back when you were in school, the best argument was that waste biomass (like the rest of the corn plant besides the ear) and certain plants that grew abundantly in nature without having to be raised like a crop (switchgrass? sawgrass? I’ve forgotten) might take a bit less energy to be turned into fuel than you can get from them as fuel. But clearly that was going to make a niche contribution at best. Time to get to work; more later. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/15 "2013-05-21T15:40:54Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I don’t recall “everyone” understanding this, and your link certainly doesn’t support what you imply it does. Certainly, hydrogen was regarded as one of the possible contenders, but “everyone” knew there were a lot of problems with storing and transporting hydrogen that would need to be solved for it to work. Taking “everyone” to mean “a relatively high number of casual laypersons”, I suppose there’s an element of truth to what **ITR champion** writes. I recall an elder brother — around that time a car salesman — regaling me with tales of how hydrogen fuel cells were the future of powered transportation. But from where does that observation draw any salience whatsoever? As I think you indicate, popular notions often don’t closely track knowledge in science and engineering. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Even liberal magazines are now [explaining](http://energypolicyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/atlantic-cover.jpg) why we’ll never run out of oil. Did you even read [that story](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/?single_page=true)? > [@Charles C. Mann](#): > > Most oil specialists agree that humankind is naturally progressing toward a no-carbon energy future. Our species has already moved from wood to coal to oil to gas, each fuel burning cleaner than its predecessor. Wind, solar, and other renewables are obvious next steps. The problem, scientists say, is that climate change is happening too quickly. Instead of evolving over decades, as happened with the building of the electrical grid, the changeover to renewables has to occur now, faster than any change before. Anyway, of course we’ll never run out of oil, if by that you mean use up every last ounce of the earth’s fossil fuels. But not even peak oil alarmists deny this (and they’re a rather fringe group, contrary to what you imply). > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’ve never thought very highly of fake converts. I don’t think he’s a fake convert. However, he’s continuing to serve heaping helpings of “I used to think like you, but now I’ve seen the light” far, far past its expiration date. It’s a popular apologetic technique but never, I’m afraid, all that convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/16 "2013-05-21T15:45:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=79146) I argued in favor of California’s zero-emissions law that I mentioned in the OP of the current thread. If you search among old GD threads, you can find many other examples where I fought for common environmentalist positions. Did you or did you not actually believe all of the points you made in your OP? ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/17 "2013-05-21T16:02:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **Incorrect belief #3: Solar and wind will take over electric production.** A July 2002 cover story in _Mother Jones_ assured me that wind power was ready to make its big move and become a major part of electricity production, but it was merely reflecting conventional wisdom at that point. Everyone was sure that the wind and its sibling, the Sun, would soon be supplying a big chunk of our electricity. Years later, wind and solar [aren’t doing very well](https://images.angelpub.com/2012/27/15166/solar-energy-76.jpg). The fact that _Mother Jones_ and co. payed little attention to was that these sources are only worth building when they’re heavily subsidized or required by law. When the economic good times are rolling, government are willing to give such subsidies and requirements, but when the economy goes south they’re among the first things on the chopping block. I’'ve done projects about solar energy subsidies from a provincial government. We have not cut back on subsidizing yet, mostly due to the usual inertness. The trend to less subsidizing will start in one or two years or so, but NOT because of budget cuts. No, the opposite is true here. Solar panels do so well that the market of installers has asked the government to stop subsidizing, as it confuses the market. For instance, if a particular subsidie starts after May, companies have zip to do in May and have to refuse business in June because everybody waits. The industry feels stey can sell their product on their own. In fact, our major news story last weekend was that cheap Chinese solar panels are “spoiling the Dutch market” because suddenly everyone has those panels installed. I see it when I travel in the Netherlands, too; in every other streets, there is at least one house with solar panels and the number increases rapidly. Solar power, at least in the Netherlands, is here to stay. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/18 "2013-05-21T16:10:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Did you or did you not actually believe all of the points you made in your OP? Does this matter? He’s just going to say _yes_, and he probably believes it whether or not his circa-2000 self would agree. Unless you have some old post of his saying “I hate fossil fuels!”, may as well take him at his word and avoid the distracting interrogation. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/19 "2013-05-21T16:25:11Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Taking “everyone” to mean “a relatively high number of casual laypersons”, I suppose there’s an element of truth to what **ITR champion** writes. I recall an elder brother — around that time a car salesman — regaling me with tales of how hydrogen fuel cells were the future of powered transportation. But from where does that observation draw any salience whatsoever? As I think you indicate, popular notions often don’t closely track knowledge in science and engineering. I’d go a step further: I don’t think very much of the public had much awareness at all of the possibility of hydrogen-powered cars, except for when Bush was pushing the idea, and maybe for a couple years after that. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865/20 "2013-05-21T16:29:06Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Solar power, at least in the Netherlands, is here to stay. And given that the Netherlands isn’t exactly the world’s sunniest country, that says a great deal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-everything-i-believed-about-energy-wrong/658865.md?page=2)