INTRODUCTION:
Climate alarmists
have been warning
us about a coming
climate crisis
since the 1970s.
But they have no ability
to predict the future ciimate.
And that means
they are lying
about the coming
climate crisis.
They have no idea
what the climate
will be like in 100 years !
They have no idea
what the climate
will be like in 100 years !
Alarmists within
the government
frequently "adjust"
historical temperature
data to show more
warming.
That's a form of lying.
One temperature
compilation "adjusted
away" the 1940 to 1975
global cooling,
that had launched
a brief global cooling
scare in the mid-1970s.
That's lying too.
Climate alarmists
completely ignore
the fact that our planet
had mild, intermittent
global warming
for the past
325 years, since
the late1600s,
and the warming
was 100% good news,
not bad news !
Another form of lying.
I would love to have
a +1 or +2 C. increase of
the average temperature
in Michigan, where I live,
and I can't wait 50 or 100
years for it !
The fact that a little more
global warming would
be good news, is never
considered.
Another form of lying.
The fact that global
warming has most
affected winter nights
at high latitudes, such
as Alaska is good news
that's never mentioned
... hidden by using
a single global average
temperature.
That's lying too.
In 2018, wind produced
5% of world electricity;
solar produced 2%.
As percentages
of total world energy,
including fuels
for transportation,
wind and solar
represented
2%, and 1%,
respectively.
Electricity systems
can avoid the
large, additional
costs for overbuilding
renewables capacity,
and adding major
battery backup,
only when renewables
have a very small share
of electricity production.
When leftists promote
solar and wind power,
they lie about the costs,
and negative effects
on the performance
of the electric grid.
Truth is not a leftist value.
That's why this blog exists.
This article is about
faulty cost estimates,
typical of solar and wind
energy cost analyses,
in general.
Energy
consumption
is measured
in different ways,
such as in
kilowatt hours,
barrels of oil
equivalent,
British thermal
units, kilocalories
and joules.
People tend
to assume
any two types
of energy
are equivalent if
they produce
the same number
of units of energy.
Wrong.
Wind energy
and solar energy
are not the
types of energy
our economy needs.
Because wind and
solar energy produce
intermittent electricity,
available only at
specific times
and places.
Our economy needs
energy types that
match the energy
requirements of the
many devices that
run on electricity.
And the electricity
needs to be
transported to
the right place,
at the right time
of the day, and the
right time of the year.
The manufacturing
and transport sectors
of our economy
did not develop
around the use of
intermittent wind
and solar electricity.
Manufacturing
would need a lot
of energy storage
for days, weeks
or months, if their
energy sources
were intermittent .
Renewable
energy analyses
tend to miss
a lot of costs.
Perhaps deliberately ?
They may focus on
the ability of
wind and solar
to power homes.
But homes use
only about one third
of total electricity
use.
A thorough
analyses of
electricity use,
our economy
must be split
into at many
different groups,
with different
electricity needs:
(1)
residential households,
(2)
electric vehicles
(3)
farmers,
(4)
manufacturers and
other goods producers
(5)
service businesses,
(6)
hospitals
(7)
governments,
(8)
U.S. military
( in the U.S.,
and abroad )
Indirect Costs of
Wind and Solar
Energy
(1)
Transmission Costs:
-- Solar and wind farms
are rarely located near
existing fossil fuel
power plants.
But additional transmission
line costs are usually not
included in wind and solar
studies.
There are higher
transmission costs
for both wind and solar
energy because:
(a)
Transmission lines
need to be scaled to
handle the maximum
electricity output,
which is far more
than the average output,
for solar and wind power.
(b)
Much longer distances
between where renewable
energy is captured, and
where it is consumed,
compared to fossil fuel
electricity generation.
(c)
Renewable electricity
variations make balancing
an electric grid much more
difficult.
(d)
Longer distance
transmission lines
mean increased
maintenance costs
of the transmission
lines.
Inadequate maintenance
of transmission lines
would cause a major
fire hazard.
The Texas Wildfire
Mitigation Project reports,
“Power lines have caused
more than 4,000 wildfires i
n Texas in the past three
and a half years.”
Burying the lines
underground would
be very expensive.
(2)
Charging stations
for electric vehicles.
Most home renters
and apartment dwellers
will not have proper
electrical connections
for charging their
electric vehicles.
And there will be
a need for many
rapid-charging stations,
located in many places,
especially for the
electric vehicles
used for long trips.
That's a big
infrastructure
investment.
(3)
Intermittency:
Fossil Fuel Backup, and
Very Expensive Batteries
Expensive batteries
are needed to smooth
out hourly variations,
such as when most
workers return home
and eat their dinners ...
sometimes after
the sun has set !
Production of solar
energy tends to
peak in June.
It falls to a low level
in December to
February.
Wind power
is quite variable,
year to year, and
month to month.
Our economy
can't handle
starts and stops
of the electricity
supply.
Especially
manufacturing.
Either there is a lot of
fossil fueled backup,
or a huge amount
of expensive battery
storage -- both are
often ignored
in cost analyses
of renewables.
Backup electricity providers
( coal, natural gas, and nuclear )
have been forced to provide
backup electricity for
wind and solar, without
adequate compensation
for that important service.
Wind and solar get the
"subsidy of going first”,
meaning fossil fueled
backup providers,
must wait "on call"
until they are needed,
but their fixed costs
are constant.
Ohio recently decided
to subsidize coal and
nuclear providers,
to offset their costs
for the "going first"
issue.
If there is a radical plan
to stop using fossil fuels,
all the backup electricity
providers, even nuclear,
would disappear.
Renewables without
fossil fuel backup,
would have a huge
intermittency problem.
Fossil fuels can be stored
relatively inexpensively.
But storing electricity
( from wind or solar )
requires a very expensive
storage system, and
there's a loss of energy
when storage is used.
(4)
Recycling worn out
renewables equipment
and batteries
The cost of recycling
wind turbines, solar panels,
and batteries needs to be
reflected in cost estimates.
A common assumption is
these things will somehow
disappear at no cost !
If recycling is assumed,
the value of the recycled
materials is usually
assumed to be
more than the cost
of recycling.
That's over optimistic.
(5)
Fossil Fuels
are needed to
Manufacture
Renewables
We need fossil fuels
to manufacture
wind turbines,
solar panels, and
hydroelectric dams.
The phase in of 100%
renewables could take
50 years or more,
so fossil fuel power
would be needed
for 50+ years,
for making the
steel, copper,
aluminum, cement,
asphalt, and plastics
needed for making
solar panels,
wind turbines
new electric
transmission
lines and
batteries.
(6)
Long Phase-in
Process for
Renewables
A transition to
renewables in
less than 50 years,
seems impossible.
Fossil fuel industries
will continue for
at least 50 years
People working in
fossil fuel industries
need to be paid every
week, not just when
electrical utilities
need their backup
electrical power.
Fossil fuels will
still need pipelines,
and refineries.
CONCLUSION:
The many
usually overlooked
indirect costs,
mean it does not
makes sense to
encourage and
subsidize wind
and solar power.
Whether wind and solar
are worthwhile needs
more thorough analyses.
If wind and solar
were really providing
a substantial benefit
to the economy,
their production would
be very profitable,
and they would not
need subsidies,
not even the subsidy
of "going first".
Fossil fuel and
nuclear power
energy sources
are inexpensive
and reliable.
Wind and solar are not
Nothing is broken
with our
energy systems
with our
energy systems
So nothing needs
to be fixed,
especially at
a huge expense.
There is no
current problem
of oil prices soaring,
or the potential
problem of
unfriendly
foreign nations
cutting off
oil supplies.
Consider the
generally falling
Brent oil prices,
most of the
time since 2008.
( adjusted for US CPI-urban inflation ).
