Solar Power: Energy By The Spoonful
By Bradley Harrington
”
If ‘soft’ technology is neither technically sound nor
economically advantageous, why is it being pushed? Because it is a
convenient cloak in which to perform some social engineering which
neither the ballot box nor the free market would ever approve
of.
”
– Petr Beckmann,
”
Why ‘Soft’ Technology Will Not Be America’s Energy
Salvation,
”
1979
If there’s one thing an industrial civilization absolutely
requires in order to sustain itself, it is energy. And the more
concentrated the energy source, the better.
Solar Power: Energy By The Spoonful
By Bradley Harrington
“If ‘soft’ technology is neither technically sound nor economically advantageous, why is it being pushed? Because it is a convenient cloak in which to perform some social engineering which neither the ballot box nor the free market would ever approve of.” – Petr Beckmann, “Why ‘Soft’ Technology Will Not Be America’s Energy Salvation,” 1979
If there’s one thing an industrial civilization absolutely requires in order to sustain itself, it is energy. And the more concentrated the energy source, the better.
Relatively dilute energy sources, by comparison, while useful in some instances to supplement major-league power generation, can never assume the burden of serving as the backbone for large-scale energy production.
But try telling that to President Obama, who just blew a pile of taxpayer money on one of the most technically ill-advised projects ever attempted, i.e., industrial-level solar power:
“The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy resources.” (“Obama awards $2 billion for solar power, hails new jobs,” Associated Press, July 3rd.)
“The two companies,” the article continues, “that will receive the money from the president’s $862 billion economic stimulus are Abengoa Solar, which will build one of the world’s largest solar plants in Arizona, creating 1,600 construction jobs; and Abound Solar Manufacturing, which is building plants in Colorado and Indiana.”
Solar power, however, is a complete flop as an industrial-level energy producer, and for one simple physical reason: one kilowatt per square meter. At the best of times. At the best of locations. Shine the sun on one square meter for an hour, and how much power do you have? One kilowatt-hour’s worth.
A lump of coal capable of generating one kilowatt-hour, by comparison, weighs less than a pound, and can be held in the palm of your hand. And the amount of uranium needed to generate that same kilowatt-hour of power? One 1,250th of an ounce – barely big enough to see. That’s the difference between concentrated energy and dilute energy – something no form of technology will ever change.
Abengoa’s soon-to-be-constructed solar plant near Phoenix, for instance, will have a capacity of 280 megawatts, and will occupy 1,900 acres.
Yet a typical coal-fired or nuclear power plant generates four times as much power – 1,000 megawatts – and occupies a fraction of the space: 25 acres. That’s an energy produced per unit acre ratio of over 300 to one. And that’s in Arizona. How well will such a scheme fly in Montana?
If “green” energy were truly the concern here, what would we actually be spending our energy money on? The concentrated variety. Not solar stupidity, but nuclear power – which, in addition to having the highest ratio of energy per unit volume, emits no CO2 whatsoever. Guaranteed power, rain or shine. Arizona or Montana. Power generation capable of backboning the electrical needs of a major industrial civilization on a 24/7 basis.
Talk to people about atoms, however, and they seem to misplace their brains. Radioactivity! Can’t have that! We’ll just forget about the fact that there are 30 trillion cancer doses of uranium scattered all over the country – and that all we would be doing by employing that material for power would be to use it for awhile, then put it back–in far more intelligent places than we found it.
No, the solar power “alternative” is an absolute hoax–just another “make-work” project that won’t even pay for itself in terms of the construction costs for those thousands of acres of materials. Per plant. We might just as well push water uphill, for this energy “policy” is an absolute joke.
And employment? While our president brays loudly about “1,600 jobs,” he forgets that those dollars were forcibly extracted from the taxpayers first – and who knows how the taxpayers would have spent that money in the various sectors of our economy had they been left to their own choices?
It reminds me of the story of Milton Friedman visiting China in the 1960s’, where the government was proudly showing off a large “public works” project-hundreds of Chinese building a canal with shovels.
When Friedman asked why they weren’t using earth-moving equipment, his guide replied that the government needed to keep those people employed. “Oh,” Friedman remarked. “I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s employment you’re after, why not just give them spoons?”
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
