Solar Rip-off?

One of the main impediments to the widespread adoption of solar energy is that it takes years for the energy savings generated by solar panels to offset their high-flying initial price tags, and the cost of photovoltaic energy compared to fossil fuels is astronomical.

Last year I went to a luncheon with the head of one of Germany's leading trade groups for photovoltaics. He said that a rooftop system would cost about $20,000 and would take two decades to pay for itself on average.

His solution? "We should not talk about instruments; we should talk about goals." See full article here.

Translation: Don't worry that the economic model that the Germans use would never work in the U.S. It's more important that we bow at the feet of today's renewable energy fad than think about the system's economic sustainability in the long run.

But according to articles I read recently in Foreign Policy and Time magazines, solar proponents recently have had the chance to have their cake and eat it too, thanks to new thin-film solar panels that can be produced for a fraction of what they used to cost.

Given the benefits these systems supposedly provide for a planet environmentalists say is in danger of overheating because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, this could be a huge breakthrough for the environmental movement.

But Foreign Policy's list of top 10 stories you didn't hear this year let's us in on a little secret. Nitrogen Triflouride, or NF3, a gas used in the production of these newfangled panels, is 17,000 times more powerful in contributing to global warming than CO2, and it might be in the atmosphere in greater abundance than previously expected.

It's still a blip on the global warming radar because it was not regulated under the famed Kyoto treaty and it's nowhere near as prevalent as CO2. Scientists worry this isn't the only gaseous culprit floating around out there. Check out the article for the details.

This reminds me of when the journal "Science" came out with a study earlier this year about how the hasty trend toward biofuels actually results in a net increase in greenhouse-gas emissions because rain forests - natural CO2 suckers - have been cleared to grow feedstocks for biofuels.

I'm all for protecting God's green earth. Let's just use our heads and look at the big picture as we make attempts to do so.

The Green They're After

Environmentalists have been pushing biofuels - those derived from carbon-based, recently living matter like trees and grass - as the alternative to fossil fuels, which have been charged with causing the greenhouse gas emissions supposedly responsible for warming the earth.

Many tout biofuels as unequivocally better than fossil fuels because they are "renewable" and emit less greenhouse gases when burned.

I'm no expert on biofuels or alternative energy in general, but since the global warming fad caught on, I've been skeptical, trying to look at the whole picture even as global warming activists, led by patron saint and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, try to slam the door shut on earnest inquiry into what these fuels and other environmental measures empirically accomplish.

Although the debate still rages, an article in today's International Herald Tribune seems to validate the idea that it's okay to question whether biofuels result in a net reduction in greenhouse gases, a drop in the guilt of groups who think we're slow-cooking ourselves or just an earnings spike in the bank accounts of those who have us fooled into paying for a big scam.

The article takes biofuels to task, citing two studies as saying that, taking account the fossil fuels expended and the land cleared to produce biofuels on a commercial scale, there's "probably" a net increase in greenhouse gases wafting into the atmosphere.

It's particularly encouraging to see this study being publicized because it bolsters those of us who would question the environmentalist orthodoxy. I don't mind people espousing opinions, and I don't claim to know whether global warming is a man-made catastrophe or a sensationalist fairy tale. I just want people to back up their claims with reason rather than emotion and with pure motives rather than a lust for profits. And I want people to look at the whole gamut of potential consequences, not just the ones beneficial to their own interests.

As a reporter, I've written articles about Germans pushing for legislation that would make wind and solar energy sources more economically viable in the U.S., and I've interviewed a top water technology official from Israel. Throughout those discussions, I've come to the conclusion that as many supposed environmental crusaders as there are out there, companies will not and cannot operate at a loss, no matter how strong their ideology.

In light of these studies, we should take a serious look at the economic (and now environmental) implications for government-mandated biofuel consumption, and when we hear green crusaders spouting their relentless rhetoric, we should do our best to figure out which kind of "green" they're after.

Photo by Trevor Williams in Xinjiang province, China. Copyright 2006.