Going green sounds so pure. Heck, I even ride my bike to work. That's green isn't it? On my Fox Business program tonight (Thursday @ 8pm & Midnight ET), I look at whether "going green" makes a difference (We will make the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions are indeed hurting the planet).
Al Gore tells us that we need to buy carbon offsets to cancel out our carbon dioxide emissions. The US Energy Department says we should buy products with the "energy star" label.
And most everyone says American must move to (subsidize) wind and solar energy. Al Gore's "Repower America" campaign claims that within ten years we can produce all our electricity with "clean, carbon-free renewable energy" from wind turbines and solar panels. But so much of what we've heard is bunk.
That's my subject in today's syndicated column:
If wind and solar power were practical, entrepreneurs would invest in it. There would be no need for government to take money from taxpayers and give it to people pushing green products.
Even with subsidies, "renewable" energy today barely makes a dent on our energy needs.
[Journalist Robert Bryce, author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy"] points out that energy production from every solar panel and windmill in America is less than the production from one coal mine.
So I ask him: "What if we build more windmills?" Bryce's astute answer:
"One nuclear power plant in Texas covers about 19 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan. To produce the same amount of power from wind turbines would require an area the size of Rhode Island. This is energy sprawl."
To produce the same amount of energy with ethanol, another "green" fuel, it would take 24 Rhode Islands to grow enough corn.
Full column here.