UPDATE: It was brought to my attention that this post may have a good point against Mr. Bell, but my frothing anger toward Texas as a whole isn’t quite clear. In order to clarify why I’m directing attention toward the state and not one single man, I’ve written an article and posted it in the Miscellaneous section of this site. Here is a link.
Three days ago, Forbes released an article by Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston making the following claims:
- Global warming is a hoax
- The renewable industry is corrupt.
Ok. Texas, the gloves come off right now.
First off, it’s rather difficult for me as a man of science to chew anything delivered to me by anybody from a state that actively denies the existence of evolution. Darwin came up with it in the 1800’s, it’s nearly 200 years later and only the only part of the world still questioning whether evolution is correct is the American South. In fact, it’s the evangelical pressure from the people within Texas that are pushing their Christian beliefs onto the other states, demanding that their creationism is just as much a part of history.
So right from the start, Mr. Bell, I question your scientific integrity and outright challenge your credentials as a scientist, based on the fact that you are a product of an archaic education system that places biblical teachings in higher priority than factual teachings. Whittling it down to terms that someone from Texas can understand: You believe the earth is 6000 years old which is provably incorrect, therefore your opinions and everything that comes out of you is invalid.
Since I myself am actually a scientist and a mathematician, allow me to slam you with some factual evidence, as I never say anything that I can’t back up with facts and other sources (like a REAL scientist should).
The Forbes article claims that renewable industries often neglect “hydropower” as a renewable resource. This is a diversionary argument aimed to pull attention away from solar and wind, making things look as if hydropower is a totally viable option for everyone. In the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, the United States actually devoted quite a bit of energy and funding toward creating a hydro-electric power generation system to power the country. However, at the time, the EPA didn’t exist, and entire valleys and forests (some containing small towns) were submerged under water for the “greater good.” I grew up next to a man-made lake that still has the un-demolished buildings of the mining town they flooded in order to make the reservoir.
So not only are the creations of hydroelectric dams harmful to the environment, there is another small problem that Mr. Bell forgot to take into account: there are only so many rivers in the US that can be dammed, and we have pretty much already created them where we can. It’s simply not possible to just keep building hydroelectric dams, as there are not enough rivers or locations suitable for placement. Therefore, this suggestion is either meant to distract people from solar and wind or to willfully misinform people, neither of which is beneficial to the population.
The next misstep Mr. Bell takes is attacking Federal subsidies in regards to solar power, claiming:
“Solar power, like wind, is a natural, free source of energy— provided that public subsidies and customers of high-priced electricity cover the costs. In the U.S. the main federal subsidy currently pays for 30% of the cost for a residential system. Then when other subsidies are added, as much as 75% of the cost can be covered.”
This statement simply is not true. The federal subsidy program that paid for up to 30% of the array was set in stages, each stage ending every year as more and more solar is installed. Ten years ago, the amounts might have been as high as 30%, but nowadays, you’re lucky if you can get 10% of your array paid for by a state entity. So basically, there are no longer as many subsidy programs or options to take advantage of, because solar power has gotten so incredibly cheap to install.
How much cheaper? It’s actually cheaper than coal to install. Here is a link to an article about a coal-fired plant looking for permitting permission to build. The plant is designed to produce 300MW of power and cost about $1.1 billion. That comes out to an installation cost of $3.67/Watt. For comparison purposes, residential solar installations run typically $3.00/Watt, and utility scaled solar installations are now competing for business at $1.50 to $2.00 per Watt.
Now the reasoning behind this old man’s rambling’s become clear. He’s a pro-coal, pro-fossil fuels Texan who believes that renewable energy industry is “corrupt” because it uses the Federal subsidy system in a way that he doesn’t approve of.
So how should the Federal subsidy programs be used according to Mr. Bell and like-minded people? Well it should go toward fossil fuels, naturally, because according to Mr. Bell, we don’t subsidize natural gas or coal or anything, right?
Image of Energy Subsidy Report, from eli.org, the Environmental Law Institute.
Actually, in the past decade, more Federal subsidy money has been paid toward fossil fuels than toward all other renewable options combined. This is at the same time that gas companies are making record profits every year, and also at the same time that large international corporations are paying record lows in taxes.
The real achievement here is the fact that despite the unfair subsidy payments being doled out toward fossil fuels, despite the silicon shortage of the 90’s, despite the decades of misinformation from Conservatives purchased by the Oil companies, and despite the bad PR from the Solyndra debacle…solar power is still thriving at such a rate and has now become so super-competitive that not even coal can compete with solar.
I should have expected as much from a state that doesn’t understand evolution. If you’d have taken the time to learn about how life develops, you might have seen this coming. Bacteria has been studied for decades, and after we understood that penicillin and other drugs could destroy bacteria, we learned that leaving penicillin in the environment all the time, making a harsh and unlivable environment for the bacterial cultures only provided the stepping stones for certain strains to eventually develop an immunity toward penicillin and other antibiotics. By slanting the environment in such a way that only the really strong survived, new “superbugs” have evolved to fight humanity’s attempt to destroy and prevent bacteria from growing. Just as the same unfair challenges in a penicillin-rich environment bred incredibly powerful, unstoppable bacteria, the unfair and slanted challenges that the solar industry has had to face has tempered this industry to be able to weather out any storm.
And for the record, it will only take 23.25 square miles to power all of LA with solar power, not the “thousands of square miles” as you stated. That value is using thin-film modules at 10% efficiency, with an average Los Angeles load of 6GW at any given time, and an average irradiance of 1000W/m2. If we used silicon modules, the efficiency jumps and we only need 15.44 square miles.
I mess with Texas…and I laugh as I do it.
