“Green energy” is economically senseless
Following on from yesterday’s post, Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren give five reasons why “green energy” is economically senseless:
- “First, green energy is diffuse, and it takes a tremendous amount of land and material to harness even a little bit of energy…”
- “Second, it is extremely costly…”
- “Third, it is unreliable…”
- “Fourth, it is scarce….”
- Finally, … electricity produced by sun or wind cannot be stored because battery technology is not currently up to the task.
The fundamental question that green energy proponents must answer is this: if green energy is so inevitable and such a great investment, why do we need to subsidize it? If and when renewable energy makes economic sense, profit-hungry investors will build all that we need for us without government needing to lift a finger. But if it doesn't make economic sense, all of the subsidies in the world won't change that fact.
Hence our working definition of Renewable Energy = “unreliable energy produced by means that would be uneconomic without tax breaks and subsidies.”
[Hat tip TOS Week in Review]