Wind And Solar Power Will Cause An Energy Crisis By 2015

Renewable energy sources have been deemed inadequate

A new report produced jointly by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and Scientific Alliance warns of the dangers for secure and reliable power supplies if the government continues the folly of believing that renewables work, and that renewables are not economically viable without the never ending huge Green taxation and subsidies.

The technologies of wind and solar power simply do not work:

Wind and solar power are not as renewable as they ought to be, doing little to reduce carbon emissions. For wind power to be a successful energy source, the investment in turbines has to be matched by large-scale conventional back-up generating capacity, rendering CO2 reduction has rather modest. With wind power, energy cannot be stored long enough not to require back-up generators. Intermittency will often prove detrimental.

Last winter when it was too cold for the bird choppers to work, the wind farms actually consumed more electricity than they produced, fortunately conventional power stations however, continued to generate power as usual.

If Britain had only renewables then the country would have frozen in the dark.

Renewable energy will be expensive for the consumer through higher electricity prices. The generation of renewable energy is already 28% below an already reduced target. To avoid an energy capacity crisis in the future, nuclear and gas sources would be the best option. Despite being subsidised more in the UK than other European countries, many wind farms are not built due to an inability to connect them to the Grid.

Both wind and solar power would be inefficient to satisfy the energy demands of the country. In order for wind farms to become a viable commercial option, they would have to rely heavily upon governmental subsidies. The capacity of wind farms would be 25%. The operational life for wind farms is only 20 years.

Renewable energy will always be prohibitively expensive and never be economically viable without huge subsidies from tax payers, this has proved to be way globally.

The businesses and people of Britain have literally found this out to their cost, as energy bills have continued to soar and Climate Change Minister Chris Huhne lied to Parliament and the people of Britain about the true cost of Huhne’s Green obsession.

“For too long, we have been told that heavy investment in uneconomic renewable energy was not only necessary but would provide a secure future electricity supply. The facts actually show that current renewable technologies are incapable of making a major contribution to energy security and – despite claims to the contrary – have only limited potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Consumers have a right to expect government to place high priority on a secure, affordable energy supply. It seems that ministers have not yet realised the need to invest in more nuclear and gas generating capacity if the electorate is not to be badly let down.”

It is time to abandon the stupidity of CO2 emissions targets and concentrate on reliable and affordable energy for people and business.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on December 14, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies, Renewables and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Where’s the link to the report? Even your blogger doesn’t link it.

    Heck where’s a link to any scientific organization or facility? The scientific allience is a political constructed created by a mining executive and a public relations guy. They partner with Oil and gas industry funded organizations (like here) to do reports. Aka they are indirectly funded by them.

    Also you may actually one day want to look up “levelized cost of power generation”.

  2. The report from the Adam Smith Institue is here:

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/renewable-energy-vision-or-mirage

    The report says the same things that the Governments own advisors have warned of

    http://toryaardvark.com/2011/09/05/climate-scam-david-cameron-very-worried-about-cost-of-green-policies/

    Full details there including the link to the letter sent to David Cameron by his advisors

    You seem upset that this report was not produced by a non scientific organisation like Greepeace, WWF, FoE, Potsdam Institue, Sierra Club et al, none of which are scientific organisations, just unelected minority pressure groups with a Green agenda.

    Renewables are a not a universal solution, anyone can see that.

    Solar makes sense if you are in the desert, in northern latitudes it is a waste of time.

    Wind is too eratic to be either reliable or cost effective and any wind installation requires 100% back up,

    Figures produced by the Department of Energy show that wind turbines are just 25% efficient, they are far too many days when for all the usual reasons bird choppers contribute nothing, and when they do it’s normally when the electricty is not needed, as you are well aware there is no effective method of storing electricty at a level much above submarine battery capacity.

    During the coldest winter in 30 years UK bird choppers produced just .6% of Britain’s energy needs.

    As to levlised cost of power generation before the Green insanity hit this land affordable power was produced from coal, gas and nuclear power stations. Yes there was an increase in fossil fuel prices which has pushed energy prices up, but the actual cost of this Green stupidity has added £200 per year to energy bills on top of the other increases.

    It is sheer stupidity to assume that fossil fuel prices will keep rising, the rapid drop of the cost of Gas in the US, from shale gas is proof of that, Britain has massive shale gas reserves.

    Coal/oil/gas generation costs less than 3p per KwH, on shore wind 8.9p per Kwh, off shore wind 9.9p per Kwh and biomass 32p per KwH and that’s with subsidies and other Green taxation.

  3. Here’s a report produced from official UK national grid information showing just how unreliable wind generation is.

    Click to access Report_Analysis%20UK%20Wind_SYoung.pdf

  4. Oh NO! it’s spector567 trolling again, one thing that levelizing graph does NOT show is costs of generation over the life of the plant, so if a new generation Thorium reactor has a life of 100 years ( as they are being designed to have ) the amount of electricity generated over its 5 times longer and far greater generation capacity not to mention reliability will make a complete mockery of any renewable source that only lasts for 20 years……….

  5. What do you do with the spent fuel rods? Bury it in the ground? Bury it at sea? What ever you do with the spent fuel, short of putting it on a rocket to outer space, will pollute the environment to create a toxic wasteland or seas. The costs of cleaning up after a nuclear accident will make the costs of wind power look like peanuts.

    Wind may be unpredictable but it will not create a toxic wasteland or toxic seas. Advances in high capacity batteries, the smart grid and other renewable and energy management systems will help reduce the need for fossil and nuclear fuels.

  6. I am very intrigued by your blog, although I don’t necessarily share your views. I am intrigued as to your motivations behind the blog. It seems to be set from a very negative and attacking stance. I feel that the ‘ecomentalists’ you talk about have everybodies well being at heart and are trying to make the world as safe and clean as possible. As far as I can see they have nothing to gain personally from promoting a healthier world with positivity and safe, less destructive forms of energy.
    Those opposing the clean energy future to me are more self centered egotistical and greedy, with a sense of trying to prove themselves right and others wrong. This should not be case of us versus them, but more of a case of working together for the cleanest healthiest planet given all the data. Why on earth would someone promote a more dangerous and destructive path that pollutes and is fraught with danger, unless they were extremely self absorbed and greedy.
    Can you please elaborate on your reasons for writing in the way you do? I am very pleased you do write however, as it has given me a fresh angle and a way for me to re-evaluate why I hold such important values.
    Are you paid by the big anti-climate corporations, or do you genuinely believe everything you write?
    Thank you.

    • I would like to point out that it is rather hard to depolarize polarized people– and both of you lie on two extremes. These people are not “against a clean planet”; instead, they think that we ought to concentrate on finding the energy to support us for now (basically until fusion is well enough researched to function, which ought to be under 100 years).

      I agree that we should care for our planet, but wind power, while able to hold a portion of our energy requirements, will never sustain us, nor can it cover all our energy requirements. And no, we will not be more efficient, unfortunately; that is just how foolish humans work. So we come back to nuclear. It does not put out CO2, has a very high efficiency, is cost effective, high volume, and long-lived.

      The only drawback is the radio-logical threat. 1) Current reactors were designed in the 60’s to make a lot of power and plutonium for bombs. They are terrible designs. They meltdown. 2) Modern (unimplemented, due to the grinding halt in nuclear power) reactor designs are safer and do not meltdown or make plutonium. 3) Nuclear isotopes exist in nature–in bulk. So putting it back in the ground is not such a crime, but still needs to be done carefully. But thorium, used in thorium reactors has such a long half life (time it takes to decay) that very few atoms decay at a time, making the radioactivity fairly low.

      I hope I have presented you with a clear and logical argument, and I hope you understand why some believe nuclear power is not a bad alternative.

      Thanks,

      Lord Z

  1. Pingback: Eco Sheep In The Cooling Towers « Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: