Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

For this debate, "alternative energy" means a fuel, method, or apparatus designed to reduce or eliminate consumption of traditional fossil fuels as they are now employed. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "Total costs" includes all the costs associated with producing, shipping, storing, and using the alternative energy. Costs include dollar costs and environmental impact. Dollar costs include capital costs, indirect induced costs, and operating costs. The resolution is largely moot for private investment in alternative energy, because investors make it their business to understand costs. For private investment, the laws governing environmental impact apply. The resolution has it's primary impact for proposed government funding, subsidies, and regulations. Citizens have a right to know the true costs of government actions not only in terms of what the government is spending, but including the indirect costs on society. An example of the principle of the resolution being applied is the accounting of nuclear power plant decommissioning costs. When a nuclear power plant is ultimately taken out of service, there are significant costs in making the plant site safe. Those are figured into the costs of the plant, disclosed, and accounted for by setting up a fund to pay for the plant decommissioning. (A quirky California law requires decommissioning costs to be disclosed on electric bills; it's about four cents on a $200 electric bill.) Examples of the principle of the resolution being ignored are plentiful. Solar and wind power are generally unreliable. The sun is absent every night. Even in windy locations the wind may cease for many days at a time, or the winds may be seasonal. Consequently, usually a backup power source, like a gas-driven power plant must be added to the grid to pick up the load when the alternative energy source is unavailable. The capital costs of the backup are generally about 70% of the cost of running the plant full time. In other words, the fossil fuel is about 30% of the cost of the power, including the delivery system. Here is an example of wind power being touted as cheaper, while totally ignoring the costs of a backup energy system: http://www.ucsusa.org... The article says that farmers can make money from selling wind energy, but ignores the extra cost to the public. The wind turbine operator is getting a substantial subsidy from ratepayers who must pay the capital costs for two systems. In some applications, no backup system will be required. For example, if solar power is used to supply peak loads to Las Vegas or Phoenix in the summer, it is probably a good assumption that the sun will be shining when the power is needed. If it happens to be cloudy, then the weather is probably cooler so than the air conditioning load will be less, so that seems like a very good application for solar power. However, if the costs are analyzed for Chicago or New York, it's likely that a full accounting would reveal a different story. Failure to perform and disclose total costs has lead to a major policy error in the government subsidies for ethanol. Ethanol production from corn requires lots of energy-intensive fertilizer, an expensive delivery system, and high costs of taking land out of food production. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... That was not disclosed or even a thought through before the policy was committed. The U.S. government is now adopting policies that favor electric cars. The energy and environmental costs http://green.yahoo.com... of making the batteries are generally ignored, and the very high capital costs of the cars is downplayed. An electric car that will run for 40 miles may cost $40,000. http://www.cbsnews.com... To make that widely salable, large government subsidies would be required. Total cost accounting amounts to honesty in developing energy policy. It does not preclude adopting more expensive alternatives. For example, a case could be argued that ethanol and electric cars effective consume coal (to produce fertilizer and batteries) in favor of imported oil. If costs are disclosed, that case can be argued on the merits. The resolution would avoid bogus claims that, for example, if a kilowatt hour of wind power is the same or lower than coal, the wind power is obviously preferable. The wind power costs may be double when the backup generator is taken into account. How much the backup costs is site dependent. In some circumstances, wind power might be used to pump water uphill into an existing hydroelectric project. That's probably much cheaper than having to build a gas-turbine plant. My point is only that full costs should be disclosed. This is a "should" resolution. It means that environmental activists and government officials should honestly perform the total cost analysis and disclose the numbers to the public. This is now rarely done, so it would greatly improve the quality of public policy decisions. Con may argue that government should not provide any subsidies. If so, that does not dispute the resolution. Investors should be fully informed of costs even if government is not involved. Con may argue that even when total costs are disclosed, there is economically sound alternative energy. If so, that does not dispute the resolution either. The resolution will nonetheless favor the best solutions. The resolution is affirmed.