Clean Energy "Solutions" Need To Be Economically Competitive

Senior energy analyst Glenn Doty (see Doty Windfuels) and I have been discussing the economic merits of novel approaches to hydrokinetics.  Re: my statement that I believed my clean energy business opportunity CycloOcean will provide a reasonable return on investment, he writes:  “I don’t doubt that the math (there) is more encouraging. You’re more careful about the economic plausibility of renewable energy than any other renewable advocate I’ve read…  That’s why I enjoy your blog (though we don’t always agree).”

I appreciate that, Glenn.  That, btw, is one area of many on which we totally agree: the whole discussion centers (or should center) around economics; solutions that are not economically competitive are not solutions at all. 

And that, in turn, is what makes this so fantastically interesting, as so many issues come to bear.  Here are six quick ones off the top of my head:

• The falling costs of renewables

• The development of various new technologies in a number of disciplines: e.g., waste-to-energy and hydro

• The prospect of pricing in the externalities of fossil fuels at some level

• The skyrocketing costs of nuclear

• The imperative for the U.S. government to subsidize clean energy R&D so as to enable American competitiveness and leadership in the 21st Century

• The continuation of subsidies to the oil companies (the most profitable industry in the history of humankind)

The whole thing has so many moving parts that it’s hard to make a firm statement about anything.  Having said that, people forward me ideas at the rate of 3 – 4 per week that couldn’t possibly make economic sense regardless of how all this plays out.  Then, of course, they get their nose out of joint when I point them in the direction of reality.