A Diesel in the Shed.
You can have your solar panels
and your turbines on the hills;
You can use the warmth of sunshine
to reduce your heating bills.
You can dream you’re self-sufficient
as you weed your vegie bed;
As long as you make sure to keep
A diesel in the shed.
When I was a kid on a dairy farm in Queensland, we relied on green energy – horses and human muscles provided motive power; fire-wood and beeswax candles supplied heat and light; windmills pumped water and the sun provided solar energy for growing crops, vegies and pastures. The only “non-green” energy used was a bit of kerosene for the kitchen lamp, and petrol for a small Ford utility. We were almost “sustainable” but there was little surplus for others.
Our life changed dramatically when we put a thumping diesel in the dairy shed. This single-cylinder engine drove the milking machines and an electricity generator which charged 16 lead-acid 2 volt batteries sitting on the veranda. This 32 volt DC system powered a modern marvel – bright light, at any time, in every room, at the touch of a switch. This system could also power Mum’s new electric clothes iron as long as someone started the engine for a bit more power.
There were no electric self-starters for diesels in those days – just a heavy crank handle. Here is the exact model which saved us from a life of dairy drudgery, kerosene lights and Mother Potts irons:
See and listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itxY98A8wHQ
But all that effort, noise and fumes were superseded when every house and dairy got connected to clean silent “coal power by wire”, and coal was used to produce coke for the new slow-combustion stoves. Suddenly the trusty “Southern Cross” diesel engines disappeared from Australian sheds and dairies, AGA cookers displaced the old smoky wood-burning stoves in the kitchen, and clean-burning coal gas replaced dirty open fires in the cities.
The problem with wind power is that electric utilities have to be prepared at any time for their power production to just stop on short notice. So they must keep fossil fuel plants on hot standby, meaning they are basically burning fuel but not producing any power. Storage technologies and the use of relatively fast-start plants like gas turbines mitigates this problem a bit but does not come close to eliminating it. This is why wind power simply as a source contributing to the grid makes very little sense.
On Earth Day we should Celebrate The True Green Fuels – Hydrocarbons and Nuclear.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today urged people to celebrate the true green fuels – oil, coal, gas, nuclear and, in places, geothermal and hydro.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that these fuels have reduced man’s pressure on the environment to such an extent that they should be celebrated on “Earth Day”.
Earth has only three significant sources of energy.
First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.
Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting the modern world and its large and growing populations.
Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples.
Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons. They need to be told that their green energy favourites are just stealing from the biosphere – they are not as green as they claim.
Promoting Parasitic Power Producers
Wind and solar are parasitic power producers, unable to survive in a modern electricity grid without the back-up of stand-alone electricity generators such as hydro, coal, gas or nuclear. And like all parasites, they weaken their hosts, causing increased operating and transmission costs and reduced profits for all participants in the grid.
Without subsidies, few large wind/solar plants would be built; and without mandated targets, few would get connected to the grid.
Green zealots posing as energy engineers should be free to play with their green energy toys at their own expense, on their own properties, but the rest of us should not be saddled with their costs and unreliability.
We should stop promoting parasitic power producers. As a first step, all green energy subsidies and targets should be abolished.
The Miracle of Green Energy – by Steve Hunter
Read more, as well as:
- Blowing Our Dollars in the Wind
- Five Fatal Flaws of Solar Energy
- The Sensible Environmentalist to Visit Australia
- Thanks for your Support
- The Last Word – our enemies have noticed us Trilobites
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/parasitic-power-producers.pdf [PDF, 150KB]
Keywords: Green energy, parasitic power, wind power, solar power, Dr Patrick Moore, the trilobites strike back.
By Kimball Rasmussen | President and CEO, Deseret Power | November 2010
With Acknowledgement to: John Droz at the Alliance for Wise Energy: http://www.wiseenergy.org/
“Wind energy has a highly intermittent output that significantly mismatches demand and delivers energy largely when it is less needed. Wind cannot satisfy the demand requirements of a utility unless it is backed up with fossil fuel plants and/or energy storage projects. This results in duplication of resources and additional costs, with little, if any, carbon mitigation. Further, the steep increases and declines in power delivery of wind put the reliability of the grid in question. The tactic of switching off excess wind supply only diminishes the already weak pattern of intermittency and adds to the per kWh cost of wind. Typically, wind resources are located far away from where the power is needed and require significant additional costs of building new transmission. Intermittency, duplication and grid operations all significantly increase the already high cost of wind energy.
“Wind becomes even more questionable when proven solutions like natural gas can deliver even greater reductions in emissions at half the cost.
“While solar power is much more grid friendly than wind, it is generally the most expensive form of renewable energy. Solar energy quasi-matches system peak load periods, but the peak solar output significantly misses actual electric system load peaks. In addition, solar facilities still produce only about 18 to 25 percent of the time. Without electricity storage, solar energy will not be able to do more than serve as a supplement to other forms of energy. It is not currently a full-scale alternative to baseload energy.
“A Renewable Portfolio Standard, or mandate of 20 percent, can result in a utility-scale duplication of net investment in generating plant of 100 percent or more. The mandate can also cause the wide variation of rate impacts, depending on availability of renewable energy projects and other utility specific parameters.”
Full detailed report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rational-look-at-renewable-energy.pdf [PDF, 3.5MB]
The Australian Climate Commission says Australia needs to reduce emissions “to nearly zero by 2050”.
Such a reduction can only be achieved if the Climate Commission has a secret plan to use nuclear power or for a massive expansion of hydro power.
If they do not have such a plan, their “nearly zero” emissions target would force the shut down of most of the energy, transport and industrial infrastructure developed since James Watt invented the steam engine.
Imagine Australia with “zero emissions” – which means zero production of carbon dioxide from human activities and industries.
This would mean zero usage of coal, oil, petrol, diesel or gas, zero production of cement or steel and the shut-down of 92% of Australia’s electricity generators.
Sunbeams and sea breezes cannot supply 24/7 electricity – the only feasible non-carbon options for Australian grid power are nuclear or hydro. Has the Climate Commission joined the nuclear power lobby? Or do they have a secret plan for big hydro developments on the Snowy, the Franklin and the Tully-Millstream?
And how do we keep our diesel-fuelled transport fleet operating? Using big, big batteries and even more nuclear or hydro power to recharge them at every roadhouse in the outback? (But once they eliminate our grazing animals and their emissions, we will not need road trains.)
And how do we keep planes operating? Are they suggesting that we divert most of our sugar production to producing power alcohol?
We are told, incessantly, that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming – it is not.
The primary source of surface heat is radiant energy from the sun. Minor heat comes from geothermal energy from volcanoes and hot rocks. Trivial quantities of local heat are brought to Earth’s surface by humans using stoves, cars, boilers, engines and factories powered by mined fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium. Even using “green” energy such as ethanol, wind or wood has a tiny temperature effect by transferring solar energy from farms and forests, to be released eventually as waste heat in cities.
Solar energy is more concentrated in equatorial areas and is moved pole-wards by the circulation of air (99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and by water and water vapour via evaporation, condensation and ocean currents. These processes are all driven by conduction, convection, latent heat and Earth’s rotation, not carbon dioxide. They are the major forces creating weather. Variations in solar cycles and cloud cover control longer term climate change.
Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in any of these dominant weather processes. Moreover, it does not burn, nor is it radioactive – it cannot produce heat.
More, as well as:
- Spinning Carbon Scare Stories out of Nature’s Tornados
- Europe’s Green Hell
- Sunset for Solar Subsidies
- The Green Kiss of Death
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/gas-of-global-warming.pdf
Keywords: Global warming, carbon dioxide, solar cycles, tornados, green energy in Europe, solar subsidies, renewable energy targets, blackouts, energy policy crisis, Green poison.
Harnessing sunlight for heating and other power purposes is not new. Solar collection devices were developed in the 17th century to protect plants brought from the tropics to northern countries, and both the first solar water heater and the first solar oven were developed the 18th century. Indeed, the solar power revolution has been on the verge of taking off for centuries.
In response to the Arab Oil Embargo, in part, the relatively new U.S. Department of Energy (along with other agencies) began a slew of programs to fund solar energy research, deployment and commercialization. Based strictly on performance, these programs have failed at the cost of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.
More: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st334.pdf [PDF, 1.7 MB]
Next Page »
By Don Aitkin
“I object to having to pay more for electricity that is produced inefficiently and erratically because some people are worried about the end of the world. In the 1980s, solar energy looked a possible way in the future of protecting our small and diminishing reserves of oil – because even then there were experts telling us that ‘Peak Oil’ had already arrived. It would never have occurred to me that we would be considering it as a source of baseline power. How would we store overnight the energy gained during the day? No one had the answer then, and no one has produced an efficient working model of the answer today. For isolated settlements and properties? Yes. For the grid? No.”