Thanks Matthew for setting the record straight. There are a lot of myths
out there reagrding alternative energy. It really comes down to the
profits that for-profit companies want to make, and often this is only
possible because governments-- especially the US government-- subsidize
them. These subsidies are found in all kinds of areas, not just energy.
For instance the loggiing companies in many states are allowed to log in
state forests and pay a pittance of what the trees are actually worth.
Robbing the public of lots of revenues and never planting a tree to
replace what they take. If the solar and wind companies were subsidized
like the nuclear and coal and so on were, they would be more than
Matthew Sleigh wrote:
> Hi Marcia,
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:42 PM, travelerinthyme
> <traveler.in.thyme@... <mailto:traveler.in.thyme%40gmail.com>>
> > Wind, water, and solar power all cost more to produce than they put
> out, alas, which is why we use petroleum and nuclear power in the
> first place.
> Where do you get this information ?
> I remember that back in the 1970's a study was done that showed
> alternative energy in a bad light - the study was (fairly) recently
> found to have been flawed; a decimal place had been misplaced and
> alternative energy production had been reported as having 1/10th of
> it's actual efficiency - the direct effect of this report was that
> alternative energy projects in the UK were dropped and nuclear energy
> promoted - indirectly the study has effected energy policy worldwide.
> On another tack:
> Plants are Wind, water, and solar power collectors, this energy can be
> harnessed in millions of different ways - in organic gardening and
> permaculture a considerable amount of the energy is reinvested in the
> soil, to arrive at a sustainable soil community where (for example)
> more biomass may be deposited than soil lost through run-off.
> All the best,