Solar Energy and the True Cost of Oil
Have we reached a point where solar power is more cost efficient than oil? Joe Schembrie thinks so. In fact, in his column, The Solar Revolution and the End of Big Energy, he calculates that at the projected world oil consumption of 2030, the true cost of oil is far greater than that of the equivalent energy which could be generated by solar panels.
He comes to this conclusion by factoring in the cost of the Iraq war which adds $180 per barrel of oil (The war is costing us $400 million every day!).
He makes the assumption that the Iraq war is being fought — if not with the outcome of keeping oil prices from rising more rapidly than they are — at least with the intended goal of securing oil and maintaining significant control over its price. Though I once regarded this view as simply a knee-jerk reaction by democrats who opposed the war, I have come to discover that I can’t find a solid argument against it. In discussions with Iraq war sympathizers (even now), I find that they generally default to an argument about oil after having every other justification debunked. They say, “well, maybe so…but what about oil? We need it.” They speak as though we won’t have oil if we don’t use war to gain control of middle eastern oil wells. The idea that we should use war to secure oil anywhere, whether or not it has an effect on the price, is immoral in my view.
Using the cost of the war as a factor in the cost comparison of oil and solar energy only makes sense if you believe the Iraq war is having a significant, beneficial (it’s keeping prices down, or at least preventing them from increasing more than they otherwise would) impact on the price of oil. Otherwise, it would be more cost efficient to simply end the war and maintain the use of oil in lieu of solar power, according to the authors calculations. It seems to me that the war has only caused the cost of oil to rise significantly. I am more inclined to argue that the cost of war, though real and tragic, is independent of the cost of oil and should not be factored in to this analysis.
Moreover, the author treats solar power as an energy source that is readily interchangeable with oil. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is true yet. An efficient means of storing and transporting energy generated by photoelectric conversion has not yet been developed, that I am aware of. As far as I could tell, this inefficiency was not accounted for in his analysis.
Though I agree that the government greatly distorts the market when it comes to energy production, leading to mis-allocation of funds and resistance in the development of alternative energy sources, I’m not convinced that solar energy has the efficiency to replace oil yet. Maybe someday.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
[…] McCain recently provided more evidence to support my claim that oil has played a significant role in the decision to send young men and women overseas to […]