Krugman On Solar

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html?hp

***************

"We cannot hold a torch to light another's path without brightening our own." (Ben Sweetland)

***************

Paul Krugman put in a plug this week for solar power. I think he's early.

But, before we get to solar, I want to make sure I reference his digression into hydraulic fracturing (fracking): injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground which, of course, releases fossil fuels. Here's what Krugman says we know fracking does: it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads. To Krugman, no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation's infrastructure.

OK. But here's the thing: Daniel Yergin, who is a Pulitzer Prize winning author on the oil industry and a member of the Secretary of Energy's commission which will report on shale production to President Obama, takes the position that "best practices" and a caring approach to the environment can mitigate many of the concerns currently expressed. According to Yergin, shale gas is now 30% of U.S. natural gas production.

Krugman's overall point, though, is that "solar" is closer than we think and much "cleaner." Krugman, the economist, accurately points out that the Solyndra failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn't keep up with the competition (here, I would add that, while I'm no expert, the China "competition" is highly subsidized). He also points out that there appears to be a developing solar version of "Moore's Law" where prices are dropping at a rate of 7% per year.

At this point, Krugman begins to compare the costs of solar with coal. But, later on at his blog site, he makes some qualifications to his euphoria. This is good because people like Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, and author of the long awaited 2011 book "Physics of the Future" (which, among other components, involved interviews with 16 Nobel Prize winners on the science of the future) has observed that solar cells are not efficient (with efficiency hovering at around 15%). For example, right now one might be able to supply the electrical needs of the United States by covering the entire state of Arizona with solar cells.

Daniel Yergin's committee reported to President Obama yesterday that government and industry aren't moving quickly enough to mitigate the environmental impact of shale gas drilling and production. The committee also faulted the Environmental Protection Agency for not including scrutiny of methane emissions by drillers in a proposed set of rules covering air pollution by the oil and gas industry. This report was a "draft" of the final report which will be produced in November but it's a "heads up" call for the overall energy debate.

So Krugman has some points about what he doesn't like but he needs to temper his euphoria about what he does like.

Interestingly, Dr. Kaku points out that while Europe has been the leader over the last few decades in wind technology, the U.S. has overtaken Europe in generating electricity from wind. Texas alone produces 8 billion watts from wind power. If the Texas plan continues, the state will produce 50 billion watts of electrical power from wind, more than enough to satisfy the state's 24 million people. Just like other sources, wind power faces its own limitations: intermittentcy, loss of power in transmission, and battery storage to name a few.

Yergin ties all this up neatly in his new book ("The Quest") when he refers to wind and solar: they are still small when measured against the scale of the power business. They still need to demonstrate that they can provide large-scale reliable electricity competitively. By 2030, hydrocarbons will still be 75 to 80 percent of what's used to generate electricity.

But things can change. Again Yergin: the largest source of U.S. oil imports is a resource that did not even exist on a commercial basis in the 1970s - Canadian oil sands.

We'll see.