Discusses wind and solar energy today.
Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: An all-star group of energy and climate scholars published a scientific article in a prestigious journal pointing out that a Stanford professor’s proposal for powering the United States entirely on renewable energy sources rests upon a gigantic lie. Over the last several years, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo and many politicians have pointed to Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson’s modeling as proof that we can quickly and cheaply transition to 100 percent renewables. What is the lie? That we can increase the amount of power from U.S. hydroelectric dams ten-fold. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and all major studies, the real potential increase is just one percent of that.
As of February 2017, Mark Jacobson is listed as being in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. He talks about the problems of man-made global warming from fossil fuels and how wind and solar energy can provide 100 % of electrical energy needs in the United States. Many people recognize that wind and solar are extremely low energy density compare to nuclear, highly unpredictable in energy output and have times when they don't provide energy at all. What if the United States adopted his plan? What would that do for the man-made climate change he talks about? What would the rest of the world do, go wind and solar, stick with fossil fuels, go nuclear? What has James Lovelock said recently about man-made global warming, wind energy and nuclear? See his position in other articles on this website.
James Temple, writer for MIT technology Review: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role. Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy. At current prices, a battery storage system of that size would cost more than $2.5 trillion. Repeat that every time the batteries are worn out.
Richard McPherson, electrical power and grid security expert. He is pursuing executable humanitarian solutions under the nexus of agriculture, water and energy: America is now living with a horrible electricity supply system. At the same time the nationwide system is vulnerable to the effects of weather, humans, EMP and solar events. A situation created by politicians for their benefits. A system, China, Russia, North Korea and their proxies love.
John Droz is the publisher of "Energy and Environmental Newsletter." A hundred-plus years ago, wind energy was recognized as an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy – and now, after hundreds of billions of wasted tax and consumer dollars, we find that (surprise!) it still is an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy. This is what happens when science is relegated to a back-of-the-bus status. When a major turbine manufacturer calls a catastrophic failure like a blade falling off "component liberation", we know we are in for an adventurous ride in a theme park divorced from reality.
David Wojick, Heartland Institute, Ph.D. Philosophy of Science and Mathematical Logic, B.Sc. Civil Engineering: The brutal cold wave that just struck America provides a stark example of why 100% renewables cannot possibly work. Once the massive high pressure system was in place there was almost no wind, so no significant wind power. And the coldest temperatures by far were at night or early morning, when there was no solar power either. The first drawing shows Germany aiming for 100% wind and solar and they are using coal as backup, essentially no reduction in fossil fuel capacity. Colorado and California are mandating 100% wind and solar (with fossil fuel backup?). It is the worse possible energy plan for modern economies. Thank the politicians who planned this.
Capell Aris, Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology: This paper assesses the cost effectiveness of installing a battery for storage of electricity generated by solar PV rooftop panels. Solar PV can reduce grid import by as much as 40% without need of battery storage. Consumers can shift electric demand to the solar peak production. The low level of winter solar generation in the UK means that battery storage will not be worthwhile.
Alex Epstein explains the most fundamental facts about solar and wind energy versus fossil fuels and nuclear power: intermittent, lowest energy density, inadequate energy storage technology, remoteness from urban centers that require large amounts of energy, vast areas of land required, environmental and wildlife destruction.
Jon Boone, environmentalist, naturalist, bird and nature artist, wind energy expert: QUESTIONS • Why did the Dutch stop using their windmills to grind their grain and pump water to reclaim their land from the sea--as soon as the steam engine was invented? • Why are sailing vessels used almost entirely for recreation today, rather than for commercial purposes? • What is the difference between energy and power? • Why must electricity supply be matched to demand at all times? • What are the implications for wind technology given that any power generated is a function of the cube of the wind speed along a narrow range of wind velocities (that is, a wind turbine doesn't begin to work until the wind speeds hits 9-mph and maxes out when the wind speeds hit around 34-mph)? • Why has steady, controllable, precision power been the basis of modern life?
Holger Douglas: Der Stromverbraucher muss für jenen »grünen« Strom zahlen, der gar nicht erzeugt wird, weil in die Netze wirklich nichts mehr passt oderweil noch keine Leitungen gebaut sind, um den Strom abzutransportieren. Doch den Betreibern sind 20 Jahre Einnahmen garantiert - ob sie Strom liefern oder nicht. [The electricity consumer must pay for electricity produced by wind turbines no matter if it is produced or not, can not be used, or is produced, but there are no transmission lines to deliver to customers. Environmental extremist law at its worst.]
James Conca, science writer for Forbes on energy, Thomas Hafera, consulting engineer: Twenty-one prominent scientists issued a sharp critique to one of their own. Mark Jacobson of Stanford said America could easily become 100% renewable by mid-century, but refused to acknowledge sound scientific principles in his research and address major errors pointed out by the scientific community. Jacobson’s claim is at complete odds with serious analyses and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the International Energy Agency, and most of academia.