Troll_Whisperer said:
Kasz216 said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
mrstickball said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
sapphi_snake said:
So, in other words: people don't think of what is best in the long run, and saving money is more important than having a planet to live on.
|
Exactly what I was thinking...
Yeah, it costs money, what a surprise. But isn't it better in the long run?
It's not that bad. In Spain wind power is the no1 energy source atm:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/wind-becomes-spains-biggest-energy-source
I don't think Spain spent THAT much money on it, right? 5 of the 17 regions of Spain get over half of their energy from renewable sources and a couple of them are close to 100% now. This is very feasible, I don't get why money is such a big issue.
Also, what you spend on building the thing you save on importing fuel in the long run anyway.
|
Spain spent astronomical amounts of money on their renewable energy. Solar PV cost per KWH is 3x nearly every other energy source. Wind is still more expensive as other non-renewable energy sources.
Is it better in the long run? I question that. You still have to mine rare earths to build the plants, make the metals, and replace them every few years when they die. In the end, your hurting the economy significantly for these energy sources, because of the tax monies that are being taken away from the people or other projects, and put into subsidies to fund these projects.
Spain is being forced to cut their PV energy subsidies, as they have spent gargantuan amounts of money on them with very little return. It is costing them billions of Euros per year to subsidise renewables, hurting their already-collapsing economy.
According to estimates, Spain has spent over $15 billion on energy subsidies over the past 5 years (http://ianscityscope.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/heavy-subsidies-sustain-spains-wind-power/). That is, on average, 10% of their entire government budget just for renewables to run in their country. That model is unsustainable. Say what you want about the environment - if your country is going to collapse, I think that it may be in your best benefit to abandon subsidizing 'green' energies in favor of survival.
|
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergÃa_renovable_en_España#Coste_de_las_energ.C3.ADas_renovables
It's in Spanish but in a nutshell: in 2008 Spain spent €2.6bn on renewable energy, and saved €2.7bn on fuel imports. Meaning they even saved €100m.
Even if those 2.8bn weren't recovered keep in mind that is absolutely nothing compared to what european states have been throwing at the market to contain the crisis.
Edit: Also where did you get Spain spends 10% of the budget on renewable energies? It's not even 1%:
http://graficos.lainformacion.com/politica/finanzas-publicas/en-que-gasta-espana_GOKnXNSkES9pTHKnt1YdS5/
You really think $15bn (€10bn) is 10% of the Spanish budget in 5 years? They spend €350bn a year...
|
Do you have a source that's in english? I can't find any in english that suggest it's remotely that cheap... including the economists.
If it is... we're getting ripped off.
Since we're loaning a spanish company 2 billion dollars for a few solar plants in Arizona and Colarado that aren't going to produce remotely as much energy as Spain does.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/obama-announces-2-billion-for-solar-energy-projects/#
Not counting subsides.
|
Well, I'll try to look for the links, but you can use babelfish or google translate to translate the wikipedia page. It's always gonna be easier to find sources from spanish pages.
Anyway, in regards of what you say: solar energy is much, much, much more expensive than wind energy, which is the main source of renewable energy in Spain. Also, Spain has so much more output because they have been doing it over the course of the last decade. Of course if you put all that money together it'll probable amount to tens of billions, but as I said the return over time should compensate.
|
