In this country, ethanol has been and still is a give-away to Big Ag. It was first peddled as a solution to foreign oil dependency. No one not on a payroll believes that petroleum-dependent (ironic!) corn- or other-based ethanol is green. Not a good example.
It is premature to make a judgment on smart grids and consumer behavior since the consumer side - use of smart appliances, energy managers, PC and smart phone user interfaces, etc. - is only just beginning to enter the marketplace. Most consumer experience so far is the revelation of more accurate and expensive billing by utilities - their use of the new information not consumers’ use. This one-sided state of affairs is hardly the path to consumer acceptance and behaviorial change and a shaky foundation on which to build conclusions.
Conversations about the price of green energy versus traditional power are often incomplete. The costs of traditional power generation are not fully accounted for in the price of the power. To compare green power to the market costs of traditional power tells an incomplete story.
A new study by Dr. Paul Epstein, the Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment and eleven co-authors, to be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal,” estimates that “the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.”
The US$3.00 per bulb cost of CFLs is a bit dated. Any comparison that uses such a high cost will fail to reflect the realities of the market of 2011 and overlook even higher total energy savings for consumers.
“Government-mandated conservation efforts succeed best when they align with the interests of entrenched stakeholders.”
Government-mandated conservation efforts are usually only possible when they align with the interests of some group of entrenched stakeholders. Such effort do not appear solely out of good intentions but are shaped by lobbying and political donations of interests groups, stakeholders with financial interests in a future with certain legislation and regulation.
You write that “With a convenient, low-cost, and pervasive energy infrastructure in place, green technologies must prove themselves more affordable or better performing to displace their competitors. By and large, the only way green energy has been able to meet that standard is through government subsidies that bridge the gap between actual cost and grid parity” but you fail to mention the subsidies that oil and gas companies receive from the government as well. The price of oil/gas is not accurate because it fails to internalize costs such as pollution, damage to our environment, health costs etc. If we priced oil and gas accurately, green energy would be better able to compete. How about a carbon tax?
Working in China for the past 13 years in a high growth region like Guangdong Province allowed me opportunities to occasionally work for local oil companies and attend some of their conferences as a spectator in the early 2000s.
It is clear to me that your reference to the competition from established energy industries has not only blocked innovation in green tech, it has aggressively pursued a “buy-out and sideline” strategy for emerging alternative energy markets. It was discussed openly at the oil conventions. Now there is an overwhelming realization among the so-called conventional energy companies that the limits on resources and reserves - especially as China develops into a Leviathan of energy consumption - mean a kind of doom if something is not done.
The opponents to alternative energy are taking up the reins and trying to drive the wagon but they do not have a clue about the social ecology of their pursuits. State smart power grid is on the move here in China and in the USA, and there is no stopping it.
COMMENTS
BY Ed
ON February 18, 2011 05:17 PM
In this country, ethanol has been and still is a give-away to Big Ag. It was first peddled as a solution to foreign oil dependency. No one not on a payroll believes that petroleum-dependent (ironic!) corn- or other-based ethanol is green. Not a good example.
BY Ed
ON February 18, 2011 05:33 PM
It is premature to make a judgment on smart grids and consumer behavior since the consumer side - use of smart appliances, energy managers, PC and smart phone user interfaces, etc. - is only just beginning to enter the marketplace. Most consumer experience so far is the revelation of more accurate and expensive billing by utilities - their use of the new information not consumers’ use. This one-sided state of affairs is hardly the path to consumer acceptance and behaviorial change and a shaky foundation on which to build conclusions.
BY Jen Maiser
ON February 18, 2011 07:01 PM
Conversations about the price of green energy versus traditional power are often incomplete. The costs of traditional power generation are not fully accounted for in the price of the power. To compare green power to the market costs of traditional power tells an incomplete story.
A new study by Dr. Paul Epstein, the Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment and eleven co-authors, to be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal,” estimates that “the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.”
BY Jen Maiser
ON February 18, 2011 07:08 PM
The US$3.00 per bulb cost of CFLs is a bit dated. Any comparison that uses such a high cost will fail to reflect the realities of the market of 2011 and overlook even higher total energy savings for consumers.
BY Jen Maiser
ON February 18, 2011 07:17 PM
“Government-mandated conservation efforts succeed best when they align with the interests of entrenched stakeholders.”
Government-mandated conservation efforts are usually only possible when they align with the interests of some group of entrenched stakeholders. Such effort do not appear solely out of good intentions but are shaped by lobbying and political donations of interests groups, stakeholders with financial interests in a future with certain legislation and regulation.
BY V
ON March 15, 2011 06:33 PM
You write that “With a convenient, low-cost, and pervasive energy infrastructure in place, green technologies must prove themselves more affordable or better performing to displace their competitors. By and large, the only way green energy has been able to meet that standard is through government subsidies that bridge the gap between actual cost and grid parity” but you fail to mention the subsidies that oil and gas companies receive from the government as well. The price of oil/gas is not accurate because it fails to internalize costs such as pollution, damage to our environment, health costs etc. If we priced oil and gas accurately, green energy would be better able to compete. How about a carbon tax?
BY Elisabeth Montgomery
ON November 20, 2011 11:38 AM
Working in China for the past 13 years in a high growth region like Guangdong Province allowed me opportunities to occasionally work for local oil companies and attend some of their conferences as a spectator in the early 2000s.
It is clear to me that your reference to the competition from established energy industries has not only blocked innovation in green tech, it has aggressively pursued a “buy-out and sideline” strategy for emerging alternative energy markets. It was discussed openly at the oil conventions. Now there is an overwhelming realization among the so-called conventional energy companies that the limits on resources and reserves - especially as China develops into a Leviathan of energy consumption - mean a kind of doom if something is not done.
The opponents to alternative energy are taking up the reins and trying to drive the wagon but they do not have a clue about the social ecology of their pursuits. State smart power grid is on the move here in China and in the USA, and there is no stopping it.
BY Shuman Talukdar
ON December 30, 2013 11:54 AM
Some updated statistics on climate change just published through the Smithsonian:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/12/six-things-we-learned-about-our-changing-climate-in-2013/
BY madhusudhana
ON September 28, 2018 11:08 PM
thanks for giving valuable information regarding of <a >techgreen</a> solution it is important for taking action awareness about the pollution effect.