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]
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.”
James Hansen, an outspoken world climate alarmist says: “Coal-fired power plants are factories of death”. The Australian Greens want a fast end to coal mining in Australia, and support a swift expansion of wind and solar power. As the Greens are part of the coalition which governs Australia, the electricity industry is now being coerced by carbon taxes and green subsidies and mandates to replace efficient and reliable coal-powered electricity with costly and unreliable wind and solar plants. All of this paranoia is driven by climatist claims that carbon dioxide causes environmental harm by triggering dangerous global warming. Let’s look at whether coal energy or green energy does more harm to the environment.
There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide causes any measurable changes to climate. In fact, the evidence indicates that changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are a result, not a cause, of variations in global temperatures.
Moreover, burning coal in clean modern power stations has definite benefits for the biosphere – it puts food and drink for all life back into the atmosphere. The major coal combustion products are – nitrogen plant food from the air (69%), carbon dioxide plant food from the coal (21%) and water vapour, the liquid for life, from the coal (7%). The other 3% comprises mainly inert atmospheric gases from the air and an ash residue of trace minerals from the coal. The green bogey-man, carbon dioxide, is the gas of life and a free gift from coal combustion to the biosphere. More carbon dioxide has proven benefits in making plants grow faster in good weather and helping them survive better in droughts or frosts. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is insurance for the biosphere no matter what climate change is in store for us.
Green energy, however, can affect local climate and does cause environmental damage…
More, as well as:
- The UN, Agenda 21 and the erosion of land ownership rights
- Killing the Earth to Save it
- The Last Word
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/wind-solar-coal.pdf [PDF, 221 KB]
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/political-cartoons/
Keywords: Coal, wind, solar, gas, gases of life, wind farms affect the climate, turbine fires, bird kills, UN, Agenda 21.
Next Page »
From: Sir Donald Miller. F Eng. FRSE.
Chairman, Scottish Power 1982-92.
Letter to Alec Salmond
09 March 2011
The Right Hon Alec Salmond
It is I believe becoming clear to a rapidly increasing number of voters in Scotland that the Scottish Government’s concentration on so called renewable energy sources to the exclusion of more reliable and economic sources , such as nuclear , is little short of disastrous. Let us look at the facts:-
1. No wind or marine energy sources can be relied on to provide power when it is needed- the only time when electricity is of any value.
2. Wind and marine need nearly 100% back up from conventional generators. Therefore any expenditure on these is additional to ‘normal’ capital required to secure our electricity supplies.
3. Output from wind turbines varies rapidly, not just locally but nationally, so that conventional back up generation is required to run inefficiently at part load, incurring further costs for the consumer.
4. Wind and wave are such extremely low density sources of energy that costs will always be high and no amount of development will alter this significantly.
5. The cost of onshore wind to the consumer is some £200/MWhr taking into account the ROC subsidy, back up generation and additional transmission costs. This is over four times the cost of energy from conventional or nuclear sources. The cost of off-shore wind is even higher at over £250/MWhr.
6. The claim that Scotland has vast resources of marine energy is based on a failure to appreciate the physics. The actual potential is readily assessed by normal engineering criteria (as in studies by Consulting Engineers Black and Veatch for The Carbon Trust and Robert Gordons University). These show that the total tidal current resource of UK waters from the Pentland Firth to the Channel Isles, neglecting costs and practical limitations such as interference with shipping and fishing and impossibility of servicing such a plethora of installations, would amount to no more than 2.5% to 5% of UK electricity requirements.
7. The costs of tidal energy to the consumer will be significantly higher than offshore wind, even after taking credit for possible developments. Wave energy will be even more costly.
8. Other low carbon technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage are unproven on the scale envisaged, requiring long term sequestration of some 200millions tons of CO2 per year from the UK alone. Taken together with the 25% loss in efficiency of generation, energy costs would more than double.
9. Ofgem has estimated that the UK Government’s energy policy will result in a doubling of electricity prices to consumers within 15 years. The much higher renewable targets of the Scottish Government would, on a stand alone basis, result in even higher prices.
10. The CEO of National Grid in a lecture to the Royal Academy of Engineering in March 2011 stated that the effect of present energy policies would be that the era of having electricity on demand in the UK was coming to an end. The UK Government estimates there is a high risk of power cuts within five years.
11. High energy prices based on subsidies are certain to have an extremely damaging effect on the Scottish Economy as recently quantified in the Verso Economics Report using the Scottish Governments’ own economic model for the Scottish economy. The loss of jobs will far outweigh the few gains, most of which will be of low to medium quality, from renewable installations.
12. Already there has been very significant damage to Scotland’s environment- the massive installation at Doune dominating the route North from Glasgow is a case in point- with consequent loss to one of its greatest assets, the tourist industry. The value of tourism to the Scottish economy is put at £4.2bn a year, far in excess of the value of all the energy produced from wind farms even with the Scottish 80% target for renewables.
13. Prior to privatisation Scotland, with six commercial reactors, produced over 60% of its electricity from nuclear and had a thriving and profitable export trade to England. As a result Scotland benefited from having one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe and this after proper allowances for all the costs involved including waste disposal and decommissioning. Unlike the present energy regime there was no element of subsidy. As distinct from other low carbon generation, nuclear is a tried and tested technology of which we have had excellent experience now for over 50 years. Supplies of nuclear fuel are secure and the cost of energy to consumers from a new generation of reactors would be less than a quarter of that from wind and marine sources.
14. The well being of a modern economy is based on a reliable and economic supply of electricity and will be even more so in future as transport becomes increasingly electrified. If one wanted to go down in history as the politician who did most to damage Scotland’s economy it would be difficult to think of a more effective route than the present energy policy.
15. It is not too late to have a rational and balanced energy policy- but it soon will be. We have only a small window of opportunity- let us grasp it before it is too late.
Sir Donald Miller. F Eng. FRSE.
Chairman, Scottish Power 1982-92.