Introduction to the myths

By steven d keeler | Aug 18, 2013


German problems with the new "green" energy illustrates some of the basic faults and hidden costs with this evolving scam (Economist, June 15, 2013).

“The trouble is that most wind and solar power is generated a long way from the parts of the country where the nuclear power plants are to be shut-off …. Germany needs more than 4000 km of new transmission lines."

“A second problem is that … renewable energy is intermittent. The wind does not blow, sun does not shine Bulk electricity storage is still in its infancy ( the ball park cost for energy storage would triple or quadruple the cost of green energy ) … so Germany still needs back-up capacity of conventional generation power. If the state includes massive subsides to construct natural gas power plants, 40% efficiency, available to be turned on/off  on/off  on/off at the whim of the wind, only then can Natural gas generation fill this roll, a not competitive position.  Aging coal power plants with low variable costs can complete."

The result is a web of grotesque distortions. On sunny days Germany pushes its excess power on to the European grid at a loss. …. On cloudy days Germany relies ever more on brown coal. Last year its CO2 emissions rose. …. The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users. Household fuel bills have gone up by 25% over the past three years, to 40%-50% above the EU average.

Local greens create, in the minds of Beacon readers, a  production that is convenient, seductive and easy to recite.  This then is the content of environmental discourse.  Solar cells have come to define what it means to be an environmentalist.  Every news article, green letter to the editor, protest, congressional hearing and bumper sticker creates another occasion for the visibility of solar, wind and other green productions to increase .  Do they ever cite any of the limitations of solar or wind ?  Rather, greens chant objectives without reflecting upon the numerous consequences of such.  This is an articulated promise the greens adopt and repeat, however, it is an empty promise.



Comments (2)
Posted by: steven d keeler | Aug 22, 2013 23:09

The local greens preach the future as moving quickly to renewable energy sources.  In fact, they even go so far as to say it is only a matter of a few decades.  Recently [ NYT, Opinion pages, 07/23/2013 ] Jim Hansen, formerly of NASA and a fervent beliver in the CO2 causes global warming agenda, had these observations :

But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

I think it’s unfortunate that so many environmentalists are just assuming that these renewable energies will be able to satisfy all of our requirements. Renewables are only providing between 1 and 2 percent — the soft renewables. Hydropower provides a significant amount of electricity but that’s limited. The hope that the wind and the sun and geothermal can provide all of our energy is a nice idea but I find it unlikely that that’s possible.

The environmental community is basically asking governments to try to reduce their emissions and asking them to subsidize clean energies. Well, that simply doesn’t work because we don’t get enough energy from the renewables to make a difference.

As a gesture of kindness to the local greens, I will not add here, his thoughts regarding Nuclear.

Posted by: Nathaniel R Brown | Aug 23, 2013 18:32

It would be interesting to know if Mr. Keeler has an actual point to make, or if he simply delights in "refuting" us Greenies as we "preach" and "chant" away.  Is it his recommendation then, that we simply give up on renewable energy and a clean environment?  He appears to have no alternative to suggest.

If you wish to comment, please login.