THE DALLES, Ore., Jan. 21 (UPI) -- Faced with rising energy costs and growing demand, much of U.S. industry and government are turning to renewable energy as a solution, but for many citizens it's unclear when and how well these technologies will work.
Given the approximately $2 billion allotted to renewable energy research and development in the recently signed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, taxpayers may want to know what their money is going to support.
Many renewable energy technologies exist, and though different entities classify different technologies as renewable, most lists include wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, fuel cells and biomass. In 2006 renewable resources provided 7 percent of the nation's electricity supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical agency for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Many of these technologies have been progressing in recent years and hold high potential to decrease U.S. consumption of fossil fuels, as well as benefit the environment because of low, or nonexistent, carbon dioxide emissions, said Gary Schmitz, spokesman for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, directed by the Department of Energy.
"In terms of potential, (renewable energy) is virtually limitless," Schmitz told United Press International. "Theoretically, if you took today's solar photovoltaic technology and employed it in a square of the Arizona desert, 100 miles on a side, you could provide the entire country with its electricity needs."
Although NREL isn't suggesting anyone actually do that, Schmitz said the point is there's enough sunlight to power the nation. And enough wind. And the list goes on.
The problem, then, lies not so much in the availability of renewable resources, or the technology to harness them, but the cost of doing so. Most of these technologies cost more, currently, than using fossil fuels.
However, even at current prices, several alternative energy technologies are thriving.
"(Implementation of) all of these technologies is growing at a rate of 20 percent to 30 percent per year," Schmitz said. "Even solar … has found a healthy market."
At 20 to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour, the price tag for solar energy stands significantly higher than that of coal at 3 to 7 cents per kwh.
But many companies see solar as a smart investment, nonetheless.
On Jan. 14, Schott Solar, a leading solar equipment manufacturer, announced its plan to invest $100 million in a factory that will produce equipment for solar power plants. Over the next several years Schott plans to employ 1,500 people and spend a total of $500 million on the facility, based in Albuquerque. The company sees the facility as an investment in a growing market, said Brian Lynch, spokesman for Schott.
"We are anticipating continued, steady growth, which has been 50 percent over the past several years," Lynch told UPI. "We see the United States as a sleeping giant for solar energy."
Although increasing fossil fuel prices and concern about the environment have fueled some of this growth, experts say government actions have also inspired investment in the technologies. Schott appears to be no exception.
"With increased incentives from the federal government and growing state action, we think the market for solar will continue to grow," Lynch said.
More than 23 states and the District of Columbia have passed Renewable Portfolio Standards, mandates that require utility companies to generate a certain amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. In addition, the federal government provides incentives or subsidies for a variety of these technologies as well as research funding.
Without this support, many renewables will never be able to break into today's market, said Jan van Dokkum, president of United Technologies Co., a producer of fuel cells. These function somewhat like a battery, but use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel to produce electricity.
"It takes a mandate to go large scale," van Dokkum told UPI. "If we can get volumes up, the price will come down … (because) if you look at the materials that make up a fuel cell compared to an internal combustion engine, it should be cheaper (to make a fuel cell)."
Currently, fuel cells are mainly used to provide electricity on board space shuttles. However, they have also been implemented in some city buses and concept cars and as electricity generators in buildings.
One of the main difficulties with fuel cell cars lies in the lack of infrastructure.
"All (gas stations) would have to be replaced with hydrogen fuel stations," van Dokkum said. "So the problems you face with fuel cells in getting them to the marketplace are tremendous."
There have been some exciting advancements in recent years, though, in making fuel cell technology cleaner. Currently, the hydrogen used in fuel cells cannot be produced without using fossil fuels. However, a scientist at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh has developed a way to split hydrogen from water molecules using only sunlight and a chemical catalyst. If this went to market, fuel cell technology would become completely emissions-free.
Photochemical hydrogen production, as it's called, can be done with an efficiency of 10 percent right now, the level required by the Department of Energy for a product to go to market, but needs much more research and testing before it will ever be available for consumers, said Shahed Khan, associate professor at Duquesne. Without increased funding, that could take a long time.
"I should say if we had serious, sufficient funding, maybe five years (before we went to market), at the latest," he told UPI.
Government should not be so quick to subsidize renewable technologies, though, said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst for energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"The more government help something needs, then the less I think it's probably all it's cracked up to be," Lieberman said.
What's keeping most of these technologies from the marketplace isn't lack of funding, Lieberman told UPI, but an inability to deliver what consumers want.
"The real issue with fuel cells is that they're not as good as their proponents say they are," Lieberman said. "The problem with wind and solar is their reliability. The sun doesn't always shine; the wind doesn't always blow."
However, some renewable options are becoming increasingly competitive, and wind actually costs the same amount per kwh as fossil fuels. Although renewable skeptics attribute this to government subsidies, renewable proponents point out the fossil fuel industry receives government help, too.
In fact, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report, the Department of Energy spent $3.1 billion on research and development for fossil fuels between 2002 and 2007, compared with $1.4 billion for renewable technologies. Electricity-related tax expenditures in the same time period for fossil fuels reached $13.7 billion, while renewable energy sources received $2.8 billion.
