Find solution
What is green energy?

Energy Policy: What has the reception been of the book Green Illusions?

  • I am reading it, and it seems to fly in the face of everything I've every heard. For instance, the book seems to be saying that the problem with photovoltaic energy is not that there's a failure of will to implement it, but rather that it's inherently too expensive and environmentally unsafe (so it'll never be cost-effective). If the message of this book is correct, it would seem we're going to have to re-think a lot of current and future energy policy.

  • Answer:

    Well, it's ranked #53,000 on Amazon, so someone is reading it. I'm not entirely sure what the book says, but I can tell you that solar PV is neither inherently too expensive nor environmentally unsafe. It's already as inexpensive as any other source of electricity in many places and with the all but assured reductions in cost we can foresee based on decades of similar cost reductions, it will be the cheapest source of electricity on much of the planet within a few years. The book -- according to a lot of third-party discussion of it -- uses a lot of really bad science to make its points. He goes on a rant about sulfur hexaflouride, a greenhouse gas of high potency but minimal frequency in the environment, and blames all of its production on solar panels -- when virtually none of it is. He fails to fully acknowledge that responsible manufacturing can keep it from escaping at all. His "agenda" such as it is seems to be to prove a thesis: Technical fixes are all bad and won't work. The reality is technical fixes are almost all "good" environmentally even when there is some "cost" to them and mostly do work, albeit with some well understood limitations. (Wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine.) I watched a good part of his Google talk and his "partial fact" approach to the topic is really his modus operandi. He talks about how the cost of solar hasn't really fallen even though module prices have. He then tosses off some line that claims the only real price drops are due to subsidies. But he ignores that (a) in Germany, installed costs are < 1/2 what they are in the U.S. (b) none of that is due to subsidies -- really (c) even in the U.S., those "total costs" are falling far faster than he claims. Look carefully at that graph. It's already out of date, but look at it carefully. Does $6.21 strike you as "not meaningfully less" than $10.40? Does $3.42 not seem like a deal vs. $11.80? Solar panels are now down below $.80 per watt and German installed costs are down to $2.20 per watt. In parts of the U.S., we are well below $5. How are we failing? Well, we're failing to catch Germany (although the gap is narrowing) but we're certainly making progress. And years of additional progress seem to be guaranteed. The guy makes a lot of really facile arguments: "We need fossil fuels to make alternative energy products, therefore we will continue to rely on fossil fuels even if we go green." This is, of course, nonsense. When you are talking about solar cells, which today return their "energy production cost" in <18 months but produce for >25 years, the idea that we need anywhere near the fossil fuel budget to support a "mostly solar" world is nonsensical. Nevermind that in a "mostly solar" world, we'd have most of the solar-cell production done in facilities that are themselves powered by... solar cells. He has a lot of really great points to make about reductions in consumption and "greenwashing", unfortunately they get lost in his agenda to prove the worthlessness of green alternative energy. My book, I'd hope, will be far less agenda oriented to fit facts to my thesis. Instead, I'd seek to show how things could be given what we know and what might come. There is a subtle but critical difference between those two. And it's why Green Illusions seems like an unimportant work. It was too busy bashing green energy to prove we needed to use less when he simply should have produced the seminal work on using less by using his reduction illustrations against pictures of a demanding and growing planet. Of course, then he'd have to admit that a huge portion of increased energy is due to economic growth, which at least in the Google talk, is yet another point he simply ignores....

Mark Rogowsky at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

I don't know a thing about that book, but this study [1] and the results of a quick Google search [2] directly disprove the claims you reference.  I'm not sure how anyone can conclude that there is a "problem" with solar power at all when it grew by an average of 33% [3] from 1979 to 2009 and has since accelerated its growth to 50% annually [4].  I would love to hear more about the claims of this book, but I'm already skeptical that any of them are remotely grounded in fact. 1 - http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4174204/solar-panels-finally-generate-more-energy-than-they-consume 2 - Searching Google for "solar price parity" yeilds: http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/renewable-energy/important-graph-cost-solar-headed-parity-coal-and-gas/ http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-the-solar-age-is-dawning-2013-5 http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/03/solar-power-hit-cost-parity-next-year/ ...and many more. 3 - http://www.cleantechblog.com/2010/07/solar-energys-33-percent-annual-growth.html 4 - http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/renewableenergy/

Matthew Kuzma

I didn't read that book either, but I do know that a LOT of people are against changes towards sustainability. "I want my diesel car, and no-one try to take it away from me! It's my God given right to pollute the air for free!" There is more to energy, than the retail price pr unit! The whole system of energy trading needs to be revolutionised - so it becomes a true open market to buy and sell (where clean energy is only charged net charges, and dirty energy has a substantial but fair pollution/CO2 tax). As soon as a fair system is in place, the clean technologies will easily compete the pants off dirty energy! Solar, wind, thermal and PV is NOT just an option, but a must do. For the energy market, it will be what the stock exchange is for stocks and other tradable items. It needs to reach out to the consumer level, just as stock trading does. Now I will be moderated, because I did not directly answer your question (just like Matthew didn't). Go ahead, make my day ...  But the last sentence in your notes, about rethinking current and future energy policy, is valid, however probably not the way that book suggests!

KÃ¥re Lohse

Dismissive by those with actual knowledge, adulatory by those opposed to renewables and EVs. Selected quotes: On EVs: It seems to me that Zehner puts a lot of weight on one study, which was published before modern EVs were even on the road. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794 does indeed conclude that manufacturing electric cars produces 20 percent higher energy use and emissions than a conventional vehicle. It admits that a number of factors are likely to change in the electric car’s favor, but, “The total life-cycle damages of the electric-vehicle technology are still estimated to be slightly greater than those of the conventional gasoline vehicle.” Dueling Studies: They Are Green That’s only one study, though. Many others come to the opposite conclusion. For instance, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830120945.htm looked at the same lifecycle issues and concluded that an electric car charged from a coal plant has the environmental profile of a gas car getting 45 mpg. On a typical European grid mix (including renewable and nukes), the gas car would need to get 58 to 79 mpg to be competitive. And if the grid is all-renewable (admittedly a rarity) then the gas car would need fuel efficiency of 117 mpg. Zehner says the Swiss study was limited in scope, assessing the battery pack lifecycle and not the entire vehicle. But according to accounts I read, it included vehicle production, the in-use phase, end-use disposal, and fuel production and delivery processes. In other words, the whole lifecycle. Another 2011 report, by Ricardo and the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, said that http://inhabitat.com/life-cycle-assessment-proves-electric-vehicles-are-a-cleaner-choice/, versus 18 tons for a plug-in electric. Nearly half of the EV’s lifetime emissions are created in the manufacturing process, the report said. http://www.plugincars.com/attacking-evs-new-book-says-electric-cars-arent-clean-123063.html A Huffington Post article summarized the opinions of many: In a review of the book, Chris Meehan, a contributing writer at http://CleanEnergyAuthority.com, a solar energy news and information resource, http://is.gd/YvVJtJ "alarmist" and "misleading" to describe Zehner's take on solar photovoltaics. Jim Motovalli, an environmental writer and frequent contributor to The New York Times, http://www.plugincars.com/attacking-evs-new-book-says-electric-cars-arent-clean-123063.html Zehner's book as being "out to reach a conclusion -- green energy is bad." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/ozzie-zehner-green-illusions_b_1710382.html On wind energy, I had this to say about Zoehner's work in an Amazon review: Mr. Zoehner is merely wrong, at length, May 30, 2012 By http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A9FLD3QBMCPGP/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp - http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A9FLD3QBMCPGP/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview This review is from: Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism (Our Sustainable Future) (Paperback) Of course, the NREL and LBNL have released new LCOE numbers for US wind energy in Feb 2012 that show 6-7 cents USD / KWh without any subsidies on average for 2012-2013 wind installations. These are based on massive capacity factor improvements (now at 35% - 47% in different wind categories) and significant price decreases in turbines. The NREL / NBNL report is "Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from U.S. Wind Power Projects" from February 2012 and can be found with a simple Google search. It is based on the latest data and basically makes all of Mr. Zoehner's arguments moot. This on top of wind auctions in the level-playing field of Brazil where wind won 80% of the generating capacity over coal, hydro and gas projects with a 5.5 cents / KWh average. So who are you going to believe? The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab only has 13 Nobelists to its credit. Mr. Zoehner is obviously more credible. And that he's attacking a 2008 report appendix instead of looking at the latest results is merely icing on the cake. That the IEA / NREL and LBNL released an up-to-date report in May affirming the earlier projections just confirms the analysis. Google "EA Wind Task 26 The Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy" for the full report. There are 165,000 wind turbines generating economic, clean, safe, CO2-free electricity that is helping displace coal and fossil fuel generation. Wind energy is on track to exceed the world-wide generating capacity of nuclear by 2016. This is a good news story. Naysayers such as Mr. Zoehner abound, but he is merely incorrect, at length. The AWEA also had a few things to say about the book: Mr. Zehner's book suffers from a basic misunderstanding of how the electric power system operates. He seems not to understand the portfolio approach to power generation, whereby a variety of power sources play together to maintain balance between demand and generation. He criticizes wind as not providing base-load power, missing the fact that large sections of the country (such as the electricity networks in Texas, Iowa and Colorado) are successfully integrating wind power at record-breaking levels.  For example, Iowa now gets 20% of its electrical energy from wind.  When the wind blows, existing fossil-fueled plants are backed off; these same plants ramp up as the wind dies down.  But no new power plants are needed to accommodate periods with low winds. http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-green-illusions-illinformed-about-wind-power_1 Have a look at the sites that really loved the book and promoted it: - Anti-wind site - http://www.windwiseradio.org/2012/07/wind-is-renewable-turbines-are-not-ozzie-zehner-green-illusions-sun-71512-7pm-et/ - Anti-wind site - http://www.wainfleetwag.com/green-illusions-video-book/green-illusions-book-review-2/ - Oilprice monitoring and insights site - http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/The-Renewable-Energy-Illusion.html - anti-wind site - http://freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/04/power-shift-away-from-green-illusions.html - anti-wind site - http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2009/02/23/green-illusions/ - global warming denialist site - http://www.thegwpf.com/green-illusions-the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-energy/ Never mind that pretty much everything Zoehner did academically and technically was in the internal combustion automotive industry: Zehner has deep Detroit-area automotive roots. He attended Kettering University (née General Motors Institute) in Flint and then worked for GM for five years, along with a stint in advanced vehicle development at the company’s Opel division in Europe for three years. http://www.wired.com/2012/07/green-illusion/all/ I could go on, but it should be clear by now that those close to the subjects Zoehner writes about see clearly his lack of objectivity, cherry-picking and other flaws, while those opposed to renewables and much less informed about them seem to adore his work.

Michael Barnard

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.