Here is the intro to a long WSJ article on the economics of wind, solar and biofuels, The new math of alternative energy ($):
The numbers are starting to look promising.
For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas.
Even though the fuel was often free -- such as wind or the sun's rays -- alternative-energy producers had to plow lots of money into finding the best way to capture that energy and convert it into electricity. Fossil-fuel producers, on the other hand, could draw on billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and decades of know-how.
Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest.
Alternative energy still can't compete with fossil fuels on price. But the margins are narrowing, particularly since oil and gas prices have been rising. The math looks even more favorable if you consider the environmental cost of fossil fuels -- which most purely economic calculations don't.
As the WSJ says: "Easily Integrate These Wall Street Journal Articles in Your Class." The summary and discussion questions from James Deardon are below the fold.
Continue reading "Is Hotelling's switch point on the horizon?" »