--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Reading the "green" discussion got me to thinking about the way we (the
>modern west, that is, not just Brinellers) tend to use the idea >of cost
>effectiveness, price and related ideas in argument these >days. I'm
>increasingly bothered by the implication and acceptance >of the idea that
>if something can be proved to be non-cost->effective, that's the end of the
>argument.
Well, lets look at the items being discussed. Solar power is now selling
for $6.00 to $7.00 per kwH according to a site that supports solar power. It
is about a factor of 200 higher than the wholesale price of electricity.
Plus, this does not include the price of storage...which will be needed for
large scale use.
According to
http://www.advancedceramics.org/upvg/record/rc196shl.htm
the price dropped from $52/kwH in '76 to $5.30 in '94. That's a bit
curious, since it is quoted as $6.00 to $7.00 in a pro-solar site I
mentioned earlier. Lets argue that it went down from $52 to $6 in 25 years.
Projecting this type of improvement, we might have a competative power
system in 50 years. We may also hit the slow part of the growth curve. My
guess is that a fundamental breakthrough (like transistors replacing vacume
tubes) will be needed for effective solar power. That site also quotes 3
billion in investments during that time. I think solar is getting at least
a half billion per year of government funding (probably closer to 1 overall)
per year now. With that kind of cash, the relatively slow pace of
improvement (compared to the requirement for cost savings), does not bode
well for cost effectiveness in the near future.
>
>The basic problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it >assumes
>that the market, which sets prices, has perfect knowledge,
The market does set prices, but with scores of solar companies, I don't
think big profit margins is the driving force. I'd argue that it just costs
that much to make solar panals...that the cost is fundamental. I don't
argue that the market is perfect, but there is a reason a hand crafted chair
costs a lot more than a massed produced one: it takes more time to make it.
>which is not true, especially when it comes to matters such as the
> >long-term effects of energy systems on the environment. Of course, >that
>is a theoretical, not pragmatic, observation, so I'll continue.
On a pragmatic level, how could we have the present resource demands to
produce solar energy (measured in any way you like) and still convert in the
next 10 years without a massive global depression? However you slice it,
its a real expense of multiple trillions of dollars that will not be
spendable elsewhere. Don't trust the market, use a different measure, but
tell me how we can convert from conventional sources to solar without a
massive hit to the ecconomy.
>
>To get back to my original point, it seems to me that when one treats
>cost-benefit analysis as a final argument, that's as silly as >treating a
>papal bull as a final argument.
But, isn't cost a reflection of reality? It may not be a perfect
reflection, but the fact that solar electricity costs $6-$7/kwH and
conventional power costs about $0.03 wholesale is a reflection of the effort
and resources that must be spent on each. If, by law, fossil fuels were
outlawed in 10 years and we had to go all solar, we would find that we would
be forced to use a lot less energy, spend much more of our resources and
time generating it, and be materially poorer overall.
>
>Finally, I'll add that I think science is mirroring the social >changes,
>finding that in evolution, for example, collaboration -- >Lynn Margulis'
>idea of endosymbiosis -- has played a significant >role.
I'm very very skeptical about bringing pomo ideas to science. (Copenhaugen
does not do that BTW.) It is true that our culture may introduce mindsets
that interfere with doing good science, but one does not get different
values of g-2, depending on the culture that measures them.
You may be arguing for something different, but it does sound like that.
Dan M.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
