I began doing research on solar generation of power for this posting, but expanded to asking how we continue to power our society in the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner. Let’s make a few generalizations. Everyone wants inexpensive energy, and we would prefer to have as little impact on the planet as possible. Some of us might even want to drive cars that are battery powered, which means the batteries have to be recharged from some source of electricity generation. Solar and wind generated electricity are “darlings,” because they don’t use those ugly petrochemicals and don’t emit carbon dioxide. However, they aren’t as dependable as plants that burn coal or natural gas. They are also unfortunately more expensive. Many consumers want to turn on their computers and feel superior because they think the energy is coming from a renewable source such as solar or wind. Some might also selfishly want the energy to be inexpensive and dependable.

This is an immensely complicated problem, but let’s begins with costs for various methods of generating electrical energy. Mark Jaffe wrote an article in the Denver Post that is a pretty good summary of the costs and dependability of various methods of energy production. The flaw is that nuclear power generation is not mentioned. I’ll attempt to summarize the excellent data in the article. Natural gas costs between 6.6 to 10.9 cents to generate a kilowatt of electricity, coal is 7.4 to 13.5, wind is 4.4 to 11.5, and solar comes in last ( in the cost race) at 14.1 to 21. The dependability is perhaps more concerning in comparing “renewable” solar and wind to oil and natural gas.  Coal and natural gas are rated at about 70-90 percent dependable. Solar and wind are rated at twenty-two to forty-two percent dependable.

Let’s try to be honest. Would you prefer to accept a less than fifty percent chance of having your home heating or air conditioning to work or your computer to be powered to be between 70-90 percent dependable, or would you be willing to accept a less than fifty percent chance of that energy being available?

Solar has especially come under pressure recently. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Yuliya Chernova reports that 8% more solar panels would be installed in 2011 than in 2010, but that increases are expected to end in 2012. The United States is about the only country that is expected to have stable or increased demand in this New Year, and that is because utilities have to install new panels to meet State mandates. Price competition for the panels, to include from the Chinese where the government directed banks to lend freely to new manufacturers, is driving companies out of business. At least seven solar panel producers, including Solyndra, filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Stock prices have of course plummeted.

And now let’s discuss nuclear power generation. I know it has been successfully vilified by those who are against anything that is titled “nuclear,” and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the recent problems in Japan after the tsunami haven’t done anything to encourage people to advocate that source of electricity. However, let’s think about this. Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the currently frightening “boogieman” (which I don’t believe) of global warming. For those who are so selfish to be interested in costs of electricity, nuclear power generation is the least expensive method. It is also dependable so long as a tsunami doesn’t wipe out the cooling systems.

The criminal investigation of government loans to Solyndra won’t help the reputation of the solar industry. An article in the Washington Post by Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig reprinted in the Denver Post contains some troubling information. The loans that were made “…were thick with political considerations.” Thousands of memos, company records, and internal e-mails show that the government was almost exclusively worried about how the story would impact Obama’s campaign for reelection. There was rarely if ever a discussion of the impact Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers, the development of solar power, or the impact on taxpayers. The discussions were almost exclusively about “How are we going to manage this politically?” The bottom line is that senior officials pushed career bureaucrats to rush their positive decision on making the loans so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it on a trip to California.

A matrix at the end of the Washington Post article presents connections between Solyndra, the Department of Energy, several senior members of the administration, and Solyndra investors. One of those investors was the billionaire George Kaiser who was a “bundler” for the Obama campaign.