Comments on: Five Alternative Sources of Energy and the Pros and Cons of Each http://www.energypoweralternatives.com/alternative-energy/five-alternative-sources-of-energy-and-the-pros-and-cons-of-each/ Getting the world aware of energy for tomorrow Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:18:16 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: DJ http://www.energypoweralternatives.com/alternative-energy/five-alternative-sources-of-energy-and-the-pros-and-cons-of-each/#comment-22279 DJ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:23:56 +0000 http://www.energypoweralternatives.com/2009/11/27/five-alternative-sources-of-energy-and-the-pros-and-cons-of-each/#comment-22279 Solar power, as in photovoltaic, is expensive compared to conventional fossil fuel power-- our grid-tie backup system will pay for itself in 73 years at the current price of coal-generated electricity. In contrast, solar water heating is far cheaper. We're installing a system now that should pay for itself in 1-1/2 years compared with what we pay for propane. Don't rule solar out just because the "sexy" PV technologies are expensive. Household-level hot water, and passive heating and cooling, are both very cost-effective, and (if implemented widely) would drastically offset fossil-fuel-sourced electricity. Also, here in the U.S., EIA is promoting "damless" hydropower that is both more cost effective and less environmentally destructive than conventional dam-based hydro. Not only does this make hydro more attractive, it also increases the number of potential sites available. Conservation should also be considered. Reports indicate that half the energy generated never leaves the generating plants, while 40-50% of what actually gets to consumers is wasted through inefficient or unnecessary use. If we could eliminate that waste, we'd only need 25-30% of the energy we burn today! Solar power, as in photovoltaic, is expensive compared to conventional fossil fuel power– our grid-tie backup system will pay for itself in 73 years at the current price of coal-generated electricity. In contrast, solar water heating is far cheaper. We’re installing a system now that should pay for itself in 1-1/2 years compared with what we pay for propane. Don’t rule solar out just because the “sexy” PV technologies are expensive. Household-level hot water, and passive heating and cooling, are both very cost-effective, and (if implemented widely) would drastically offset fossil-fuel-sourced electricity.

Also, here in the U.S., EIA is promoting “damless” hydropower that is both more cost effective and less environmentally destructive than conventional dam-based hydro. Not only does this make hydro more attractive, it also increases the number of potential sites available.

Conservation should also be considered. Reports indicate that half the energy generated never leaves the generating plants, while 40-50% of what actually gets to consumers is wasted through inefficient or unnecessary use. If we could eliminate that waste, we’d only need 25-30% of the energy we burn today!

]]>