Shell Game
An article in today's Washington Post sings the praises of solar energy. It touts the high quality jobs the industry promotes, the positive impact for industries and businesses that install solar panels and the all-around feel good aspects of the burgeoning solar industry. Inadvertently, they also reveal the massive shell game that politicians plan on playing with financial incentives. You see, the Democrats plan on taking away tax breaks on oil companies in order to give tax breaks to oil companies.
"What we need are policies that advance the climate for investment in these products," says Marco Trbovich, communications director for the United Steelworkers of America.
The ethanol sector has been adding jobs, too. In August, U.S. refineries produced 27 percent more ethanol than a year earlier, and 48 distilleries are under construction. Meanwhile, the solar industry has about 20,000 jobs nationwide, said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. That's a small number, but Resch said it is growing by 35 percent a year.
Expansions like BP's add another reason — along with environmental concerns and national security — for the boosters of solar, wind power and biofuels to use in pleading for more government support in the form of purchases, targets, import limits, subsidies and tax breaks for alternative energy. The Apollo Alliance — a group of environmentalists, alternate energy companies and unions — said in a 2004 report that a $30 billion federal program could create 3.3 million jobs over 10 years.
That sort of spending isn't likely, so the report's optimistic forecast won't be tested. But many governors and mayors are realizing that fostering renewable energy can be good for their states and cities. Under Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D), Pennsylvania has become a major purchaser of "green energy." The jobs created, while modest in number, have symbolic importance and make a difference in individual communities. In March, after receiving financing from the state and assurances from Rendell, Spanish wind power company Gamesa Energy said it would invest $34 million to manufacture towers and blades for wind turbines in Fairless Hills, Pa., which was hit hard by the closing of the last U.S. Steel Corp. facilities there in 2001. Gamesa said it expected to create 530 jobs.
Many of the jobs are good ones, in contrast to the low-wage food-service jobs that have bolstered employment statistics without improving quality of life for the people who hold them. "You're producing high-quality manufacturing jobs when others are moving out of the United States," Resch said. "If you look at the next high-tech growth industry in the United States, it can and should be solar energy."
Read the whole thing. What's happening here is an attempt to shift federal money to industries where unions have a foothold - or a stranglehold - on the work force. Note that the major stakeholders in the solar power field are the same oil companies that the politicians want to take tax breaks away from. Oh and then turn around and give the tax breaks to the solar energy companies which are owned by the oil companies. All you have to do is spot the pea under the walnut shell. Step right up and place your bets.
A basic primer on why wind (or solar) is not a panacea is here. A warning about the necessary amount of space needed for enough solar panels is here. And an early warning about the bubble being created by these alternate energy initiatives here.
By BubbaB, Monday, 20 November , 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Gaius:
Excellent write-up on wind power. I work as an embedded software engineer, but my degree is in electrical engineering. I actually requested a “power” class at my college, but they started it after I left. You are right, very few colleges have it as a separate class. I learned the basics in my circuits and signals course (including phasors!), but I have always wanted to learn more. Do you know of a good website that discusses some of the more “esoteric” things?
I never totally understood why the amount of power loss in transmission line would decrease with an increasing voltage. The power delivered to the transformer is the same, regardless of what the voltage is (V=IR, power = V^2/R.) Hold on. I think I just partially answered my question. It’s not resistance of the power line, it’s the net impedance, isn’t it?
Anyway, any suggested websites?
By Gaius, Monday, 20 November , 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Higher voltage, lower current, less loss to heat. I’ll have to look around, I haven’t really checked into it. I learned all my power the old fashioned way. Falling asleep on the book and absorbing it through osmosis.
By BubbaB, Tuesday, 21 November , 2006 @ 12:15 pm
DOH!! There is no such thing as a perfect resistor!! As current increases, the resistor heats up, which actually INCREASES the resistance. At some point, equilibrium is achieved, but by then, power is lost in the resistance…
Duh… Also the reason that AC is preferred over DC. You can increase the voltage in AC, and step it down using transformers. Can’t do that with DC. Well, you can, but not easily, and not without added expense and loss of efficiency.