I have seen a number of plans to phase in renewable energy over a 10 year time period and what has been striking is the fact that these plants require only a slightly higher initial economic input when compared to coal and nuclear power and dramatically drop off after the 10 year period due tot the fact that no fuel is required to generate the power. Nuclear and coal may have a slight advantage in cost per GW but will have to continue paying in on fuel costs after the initial 10 year period of capital investment.
Another issue that is often ignored is that the partial increase in cost from using renewables is offset by the increases in efficiency on the demand side. Having to pay an additional 10% on your electricity is therefore offset by the 10% less electricity you use due to higher efficiencies. I also firmly believe that most people will be more than willing to pay the additional cost for renewables. It must be emphasized that it is client demand that will solidify energy policy. Since the market system controls most activities we engage in, why not use it.
Having been at a renewable energy and climate change conference and experiencing the DEADLOCK just within a group of environmental groups in regard to the issues it has become clear that we cannot rely on goverment to implement the strategies. We need to take action by changing the way we live our lives. If we can achieve a 10% reduction in energy demand by doing simple changes to lifestyle and technology, government may look at some of the alternatives as it will have the time to do so. Tight now government is pushed for time and needs to provide additional electricity to solve some of the load shedding problems we are experiencing.
Posts
