From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 20:50:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment



 
In article <1993Jan3.013947.25856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>
>Why isn't Solar Power getting the attention that it deserves? 

The question is ambiguous.  Attention by government, the mass media,
the electric utilities, builders and architects, investors?  Have I missed
any institution to which "Solar Power" might matter?  

Shane's suggested explanations don't make sense to me since each of
the above mentioned institutions would have different motivations behind
its decisions concerning solar energy.  But what the hell, I'll try to
answer his question anyhow, one institution at a time.
Please note I've directed this flame-bait to the talk group, since IMHO
it wasn't a sci question.  Please help the Usenet survive by respecting
the group charters.

Gov't:  To begin to understand US government priorities, first
understand that internal bureaucratic forces are much weaker than
external pressures from organized "interests."  Any analyst who begins
by assuming that the opinions of civil servants determine broad policy
is "doomed to talk nonsense."

Both "the people" through their repesentatives and the power
elite through their revolving door and their personal networks
influence government priorities.  The power elite and those people
employed by institutions of the technological status quo have an
investment in and an income stream from it with which solar energy
would compete.  Therefrom forms a broadbased influence on government
not to invest major resources (money, staff-hours, political capital)
in serious efforts to supplant that status quo.  Offsetting that 
influence are "special interests" such as consumers,
environmentalists, and academics whose goals would be served by
alternatives to the status quo which are less centralized, more labor
intensive, and externalize less cost.  These competing influences have
given us an open-ended research program at the Dep't of Energy which
seems directed away from bringing the research products to market.


Mass media:  The agenda of the mass media is set by its owners and
its major advertisers.  Since the "special interests" of consumers
and environmentalists do not own the commercial media, one would expect
their views to be marginalized there.  Do not expect to find articulate
spokespersons from those interests on MacNeil Lehrer or Nightline.
Do not expect to find discussion in the New York Times or CNN of solar
energy as a practical alternative or the institutional impediments to
its introduction.

Electric Utilities:  Most are moving ahead with solar and wind already.
There's been little experience with the plants and utilities have no
experience with highly decentralized generation.  Expect a lot of little
pilot projects and a few bigger ones in the next few years.

Builders and Architects:  Architects know how to design buildings which
use much less energy than the ones we get now, and even get their heat
and cooling from the sun and wind, and builders can put them up.  But
developers are not demanding these improvements because the costs of
the energy their buildings waste is mostly externalized.

Investors:  Any time cost is externalized the investor gets the benefit
from society paying the cost.  Therefore investors prefer industrial
processes whose costs can be hidden.  Thus oil and coal and to a lesser
extent nuclear fission are favored over wind, biomass, and solar.


>  Is it because the Oil companies aren't done selling us petro?

Certainly the largest investors in oil stocks have ways to influence
policy makers which are unavailable to you and I.
Certainly oil companies have an interest in holding a competitor at
bay.  Owning them seems to work.  Altantic Ritchfield Company owns Arco
Solar.  Does Mobil still own a controlling interest in Solarex?  Are
there *any* volume photovoltaic cell manufacturers in the USA *not*
owned by oil companies?


>  [IMHO sarcastic comments against nuclear engineers.]

Let's not attack people whose experiences and life choices
differ from our own.  It's rude and wastes limited bandwidth.

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose CA
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13745 ca.environment:1114 ba.transportation:2874