Discusses wind and solar energy today.
Matt Ridley is the author of The Rational Optimist and a Member of the British House of Lords: The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year.’ Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance. Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, wind power provides only slightly more than zero energy to the world.
José Maldifassi Pohlhammer, Ph.D., máster en Ingenieria Nuclear del Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), profesor de la Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez en Viña del Mar, Chile: Este artículo analiza cuáles serían los efectos a nivel global de una política tendiente a desmantelar las centrales nucleares existentes y a prohibir la construcción de futuros reactores para generar electricidad.
Anthony Watts, publisher of wattsupwiththat.com Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change: The entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. In the picture recently taken in Sweden, freezing cold weather has caused the rotor blades of a wind turbine to ice up bringing the blades to a complete stop. To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them.
Paul Driessen, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT: In a world where we are supposed to ban nuclear (and most hydroelectric) power, the very notion of eliminating the 80% of all global energy that comes from oil, natural gas and coal – replacing it with wind, solar and biofuel power – is fundamentally absurd. Now the focus is on climate change. Every EV sale will help prevent assumed and asserted man-made temperature, climate and weather disasters, we’re told – even if their total sales represented less than 1% of all U.S. car and light truck sales in 2016 (Tesla sold 47,184 of the 17,557,955 vehicles sold nationwide last year), and plug-in EVs account for barely 0.15% of 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide.
Paul Driessen, Committee For A Constuctive Tomorrow: As an Australia-wide heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 105 degrees F (40.6 C) in early 2017, air conditioning demand skyrocketed. But Adelaide, South Australia is heavily dependent on wind turbines for electricity generation – and there was no wind. Regulators told the local natural gas-fired power plant to ramp up its output, but it couldn’t get enough gas to do so. To avoid a massive, widespread blackout, regulators shut off power to 90,000 homes, leaving angry families sweltering in the dark.
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.
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.
Fritz Vahrenholt, PhD Chemistry: Is the program in Germany to stop using nuclear power and switch to wind and solar energy more important than nature itself? BaZ: Sie haben die deutsche Energiewende als «Desaster» bezeichnet. Wieso? Fritz Vahrenholt: Zunächst einmal hat die deutsche Regierung nach dem Tsunami in Japan innerhalb eines Wochenendes entschieden, auf die Kernenergie zu verzichten, die bis dahin die Grundlast für die deutsche Industrie erzeugt hat. Die Regierung will seither diese gesicherte Energie durch schwankenden Strom aus Sonne und Wind ersetzen. Dass das nicht vernünftig ist, weiss eigentlich jeder.
Sierra Club: Wind energy is the fastest-growing source of power in the world. Who has heard something similar about investing in a fast growing stock that for one reason or other, disappears slowly or rapidly from a public listing? Did the world abandon sailing ships and wind mills? Why would the world turn to wind turbines for generating electricity that has to have steady, tightly controlled service 24/7? For other opinions see articles by John Droz and Jon Boone on this website.
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.