When I was a child, growing up in suburban Sydney, it seemed that every house was putting solar hot water systems upon their roofs and television shows previewing scientific breakthroughs touted the use of solar/wind/water energy in a host of applications.
My question is, a couple of decades later, what the heck happened?
Why do I hear virtually nothing about the latest wind or wave mills producing clean energy for the masses? Or rows of solar energy collectors being erected in the deserts of Australia/America/Africa?
Is it a case of technology not progressing to a stage where it is cost effective? If so, has research in this area been scaled back in the last 20 years?
Is it a conspiracy of the energy companies stifling the R&D in this area to promote fossil fuels?
I know that there are now more oil reserves than ever before because of recent prospecting but the reserves of fossil fuels are obviously finite and consumption must be exceeding reproduction. There are also the issues of pollution and environmental effects. Why aren’t green energy initiatives a higher priority than they are? Or is it just my ignorance?
While this is a little outside of the research I did for my thesis, I will venture a SWAG.
In general, alternative power generation methods suffer from a dependence on nature. And nature is not predictable. Commercial users especially require dependable, cheap power because they often look for a seven-year payoff of their investment. Residential users will often work harder for cleaner power. And will often pay more for it too.
In the 70’s when we had the energy crisis, the development of these alternative technologies took off, as did development of more efficient fossil fuel processes. When more reserves were found, the efficient processes now allowed us to use them longer. (Big SWAG)
Photovoltaic technology has in fact progressed to the point that it is cost-effective for residential use. However, in my area (Northeast USA, Delaware specifically) we don’t have enough clear days to reliably use photovoltaic power as a primary source.
Same problem for solar water heaters - not enough sun to make them dependable.
[personal opinion]
When people want reliable, reasonable cheap power, they will burn something for it rather than catch it (wind, solar, geothermal). But as fuel costs rise and alternative technology costs drop, there will be a time when it will be practical to mix them.
[/personal opinion]
Solar Collectors are reasonably popular in some deveopments, and if designed in from scratch they can cost equal or even less than tiling a roof.
(Collectors are just copper pipes filled with anti-freeze liquid set behind glass- used to heat 70% of domestic water needs).
A 2 Sq m panel is sufficient for a household of 4. The main argument against them (in the UK) is that they are just, plain ugly.
Solar convertors (photo voltaics) still prove to not be economically viable, although they are improving all the time. Although I note epeepunk disagrees.
Conversely, solar convertors are more economically viable in Scotland than in the South of France, due to the loading needs. France may have a much higher number of sunny days, but it is the ratio of need to supply which is important. In Scotland the heating season runs for 10 months, in France it runs only for two months. Over a year they wil provide more power assistance to the house in the colder climate.
The others are not cost effective either. Consider that oil is cheaper than orange juice it will be quite some time before there is economic pressure to develop other alternative sources.
Here in California, there are several ‘wind farms’…two that I know of: one near Palm Springs, and one in North-Central CA.
Locally, the paper had a story about a man who bought his OWN wind generator. He got all his ducks in a row, and just before hooking it all up, the neighbors complained about this POLE in his yard. The city had granted him all the necessary permits, and IIRC, SCal Edison was even preparing to reimburse him for part of his costs. Well, the yappy neighbors eventually got the city to revoke his paperwork.
A couple of summers later, the legacy of the Wilson regime’s deregulation very thoroughly hosed the residents of California.
I often wonder if that person made a tour of the neighborhood, beating the crap out of everyone who complained.
~VOW
I was just on vacation here in Michigan, and we saw a large windmill near Traverse City, and two near Mackinaw City. Also, there was just an article in the paper about Cape Cod residents opposing a windmill farm several miles off the coast there (I’m not sure if any are up yet or not). So windpower, at least, is being pursued as a viable source for electricity.
Also, taxbreaks given for the construction of alternative energy facilities are set to expire here shortly, (if they haven’t already), which means that some of the incentives folks once had for building an alternate energy power plant are now gone. Since a solar power plant is generally more expensive to construct than a conventional plant (while the long term operating costs are lower, after all, you’re not buying any fuel) and people are more interested in a short term payoff than a long term one, few, if any, folks are interested in investing in them.
There are a few “green” sources which can be cost effective, such as hydroelectric and geothermal. The key there, though, is that they’re only cost-effective in some places, and most of the places that could use a hydroelectric generator already have one. For instance: The Colorado River drops down a very significant elevation over its course, and it already goes through Hoover Dam. The Mississippi River has little if any hydroelectric on it, but that’s because the Mississippi is almost flat.
