Those who support the Green New Deal (GND) claim that renewable energy sources will save our planet from the ravages of fossil fuel-induced climate change.
According to climate change zealots, there is only one possible solution to the problem of man-made global warming: eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
Warmists insist that climate-destroying fossil fuel pollution can be terminated forever if the world switches its energy production from fossil fuels to green energy, which is claimed to be environmentally friendly and produces no pollution.
The three renewable energy sources most widely touted are solar, wind, and biofuels. However, unbeknownst to the public, the real motivation of the climate-change lobby is a complete government takeover of the energy industry. By definition, this is a move toward socialism, which is the clear goal of the Green New Deal.
With the exception of hydropower, all renewable energy is expensive and inefficient. In fact, renewables only become possible through massive government subsidies, which come courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Consequently, no one knows the actual costs of wind, solar, or biofuels.
To make this point more relevant, let’s consider U.S. energy demand and how difficult it would be to supply with solar energy. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DoE) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory notes that as of 2015 the total energy consumed in the United States was equivalent to 17 billion barrels of oil or the use of 4,000 100-watt light bulbs per resident.
Of this total energy consumption, DOE says 38 percent is used for electricity, 29 percent for transportation, and the remaining 33 percent as onsite power for business and industry. Only 11 percent is used domestically. Fossil fuels provide 82 percent of that power, nuclear 9 percent, and hydropower 2.5 percent.
Of the renewable energy sources preferred by the GND, biofuels such as ethanol in gasoline provide 5 percent, wind power 2 percent, and solar less than 1 percent.
However, in light of this government-generated data, the GND calls for all fossil fuel burning power plants to be shut down over the next 12 years. Worse yet, it also calls for the shuttering of all nuclear power plants because anything radioactive is considered inherently evil.
Further, it demands that as many hydroelectric power plants as possible be closed to protect fish spawning grounds. The GND would also eliminate gasoline-powered vehicles in favor of electric cars and public transportation.
According to the 2017 Solar Electric Handbook, the maximum amount of sunlight hitting one square meter (roughly a square yard) of the Earth’s surface delivers 1,000 watts of power (ten 100-watt bulbs).
But the shifting angles of the sun drops that number to 600 watts. Commercial photovoltaic cells can only harvest 15 percent of that energy, dropping us to only 90 watts under ideal conditions — enough energy for about one 100-watt bulb.
But the sun does not shine at night, so we are down to 45 watts. And solar collectors only take up a little over 50 percent of the land area of a solar farm, which brings us to 25 watts.
After we account for average clouds, smoke, and dust — we could drop all the way down to zero watts. As of now, the national average for solar facilities is between five and seven watts per square meter. Is the picture getting clear? But wait there is more.
According to the U.S. Energy Administration, photoelectric cells used to create electric energy consume more energy in their production than they collect.
The complex process required to create raw quartz used to eventually make the wafers that become the collector’s surface requires 3,370-kilowatt hours of energy per square meter of collector material produced.
At an efficiency of seven watts per square meter harvested it would take 50 years to break even on energy out versus energy in and no solar collector has or will ever last 50 years.
But wait, there is still more. Solar energy can’t be turned on and off to meet swings in energy demand. The sun shines during the day but power demand peaks in the morning and evening.
Less energy is collected in winter than summer due to shorter days and lower sun angles. One solution is to have backup fossil fuel power plants. But then we are paying for two energy systems and the use of fossil fuel continues.
The other solution is to store extra energy in batteries. A typical lead-acid car battery has a storage capacity of a one-kilowatt hour, according to McGraw-Hill’s Handbook of Batteries.
A total replacement of fossil fuels by solar energy and a battery storage component would require 15 trillion of such batteries. Lithium batteries would offer more storage but at double the cost.
Also, the land area required for solar farms is extraordinary. Using the most generous capacity numbers for photovoltaic cells in the sunniest areas, a 1,000-megawatt solar farm (the standard output of most fossil fuel plants) would require 51 square miles, which is the approximate area of San Francisco.
Where is the land to be sacrificed in the name of the GND to come from? In fact, there is not enough land in the United States to harvest the necessary amount of solar energy to come even close to meeting the nation’s current energy consumption.
Although a solar farm can be built anywhere, sunny areas of the country are not evenly distributed. This means long transmission lines from the sunniest area to the less sunny areas are required across the nation. As the distance increases the cost of solar skyrockets.
Solar energy is way too expensive for most countries or individuals. The World Bank says that more than 1.5 billion people live without electricity.
Although coal is vilified for producing a third of the world’s energy, its use continues to increase because it is reliable and costs only seven cents a kilowatt hour.
Natural gas costs even less at six cents a kilowatt hour. The costs reported for solar operations have dropped to 16 cents a kilowatt hour, but government subsidies come to 24 cents a kilowatt hour giving it a real cost of 40 cents. Few Americans could afford this to save the planet, let alone people living in poorer countries.
As of now, widespread solar energy and the Green New Deal are but a fantasy of those who truly wish to destroy the United States as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Portions of this article have been excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker, Ph.D. Publisher: Moonshine Cove. The authors of this article strongly recommend this book as the very best source of detailed accurate information on the climate change debate.
Jay Lehr (jl***@*******nd.org) is the science director at The Heartland Institute. Tom Harris (ic*************@***il.com) is executive director of the International Climate Science
Read more at American Thinker
I saw one where some cracked urn predicted that the British Isles was going to be a series if tiny little islands by now some predicted that the USA would be divided at the Mississippi River area and the Pratt River in Nebraska would be all dried up if want t o belelive these Crack-Pots Eco-Wackos
Turning this reality over and over is boring. Any engineer can show the idea of renewable energy replacing fossil energy on the grid is simple bunk on the basic science of energy density and intermittency. Not enough energy overall, not there when needed and requiresrequirs unbelievable amounts of land and physical resources per KWh when its working, and unimaginable physical storage resources per KWh to support the grid without 100% fossil backup using physical storage in batteries or hydro pumped storage.
Only nuclear is intense and controllable enough to replace fossil on the grid, if people want to keep living in an energy dependent developed economy. I expect most are not as anxious to return to 3rd world living standards and healcare to support the GND. There isn’t any other path. As Hans Rosling put it, “we don’t live in harmony with nature, we die in harmony with nature”. BUT, as well as protecting us better from nature, prosperity allows us to take care of the environment better than poverty, if we use the money to protect ourselves from natural hazards, disease and famine, all of which the richest nations do best, by using the most energy per capita. AS we develop we become continually more efficient in resource use, and most unsustainable things can be replaced with alternatives, or synthesised as necessary. We have the technology, and keep developing better.
To be really, really clear, we don’t need more books. The late great Sir David MacKay wrote the benchmark work on this “Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot Air” ten years ago, read by everyone with an interest globally, a Bil Gates top ten read, when Valclav Smil, Caesare Marchetti and Jesse Ausubel also wrote their papers. It’s in print or on line. The ten page synopsis is a good entry level read.
http://withouthotair.com/
He is sadly died at 48 but you an catch his last public explanation of the physics reality in the Mark Lynas interview, or another side of the abolsute physics reality in his TED talk.
This reality is obvious if you understand the basic high school physics and “do the arithmetic” on the few available options capable of delivering grid supply levels of energy on demand. Renewables are a delusion believed in only by people who don’t understand electrical engineering and cannot do the numbers, so are wholly delusional about the capabilities of the delusional solutions to deliver the energy objectives of policy. A simple and absolute nonsense on the science fact. Not a debate, no consensus appropriate. The only way they can be used to harvest their subsidies is with fossil on the grid to push off when they are working, deliver most of the output and 100% backup when its dark/the wind don’t blow. A wholly parasitic and pointless duplication, because when the fossil goes, only nuclear has the enrgy density and controllability/reiability to replace the energy fossil fuels used to generate.
Renewables cannot be made less weak or intermittent by subidies, this is the fundamental property of the energy source, not the expensive collectors.
Nuclear needs no “CO2 offsetting” renewables. It’s also cheaper with ALL costs considered than any renewable. Check the IEA reports, ignore the BS.
The problem is the gullible pubic has been sold this deceitful pseudo science/pseudo engineering bullshit to enrich renewable subsidy farmers and academic careers in climate pseudo science, also Washington lobbyists and insiders in the subsidy trough, and are too poorly educated and ignorant to understand even the basic science, even if they know to test assertions. How do you change the inability of people to understand the simple facts at the most basic level, or even take an interest in the fraud perpetrated upon them by the climate change renewable energy protection racket? There is no easy money in telling the people the truth. There is no real climate problem on the measured facts, and the supposed solution will only make it expensively worse, or n compared to replacing fossil with nuclear in due course. Nothing else makes sense, saving hydro in rocky mountainous territory of low value for other uses.Obs.
But you can’t fix stupid……
From Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys comment “are too poorly educated and ignorant to understand even the basic science.” One legislator, I forgot which state, introduced a bill to ban di-hydrogen oxide. He knew what he was doing and listed the lives lost and damage done by this substance. He got a number of legislators to support his proposed bill. Lack of understanding basic science provides a rich field for the climate change movement.
Turning this reality over and over is boring. Any engineer can show the idea of renewable energy replacing fossil energy on the grid is simple bunk on the basic science of energy density and intermittency. Not enough energy overall, not there when needed and requiresrequirs unbelievable amounts of land and physical resources per KWh when its working, and unimaginable physical storage resources per KWh to support the grid without 100% fossil backup using physical storage in batteries or hydro pumped storage.
Only nuclear is intense and controllable enough to replace fossil on the grid, if people want to keep living in an energy dependent developed economy. I expect most are not as anxious to return to 3rd world living standards and healcare to support the GND. There isn’t any other path. As Hans Rosling put it, “we don’t live in harmony with nature, we die in harmony with nature”. BUT, as well as protecting us better from nature, prosperity allows us to take care of the environment better than poverty, if we use the money to protect ourselves from natural hazards, disease and famine, all of which the richest nations do best, by using the most energy per capita. AS we develop we become continually more efficient in resource use, and most unsustainable things can be replaced with alternatives, or synthesised as necessary. We have the technology, and keep developing better.
To be really, really clear, we don’t need more books. The late great Sir David MacKay wrote the benchmark work on this “Sustainable Energy, Without the Hot Air” ten years ago, read by everyone with an interest globally, a Bil Gates top ten read, when Valclav Smil, Caesare Marchetti and Jesse Ausubel also wrote their papers. It’s in print or on line. The ten page synopsis is a good entry level read.
http://withouthotair.com/
He is sadly died at 48 but you an catch his last public explanation of the physics reality in the Mark Lynas interview, or another side of the abolsute physics reality in his TED talk.
This reality is obvious if you understand the basic high school physics and “do the arithmetic” on the few available options capable of delivering grid supply levels of energy on demand. Renewables are a delusion believed in only by people who don’t understand electrical engineering and cannot do the numbers, so are wholly delusional about the capabilities of the delusional solutions to deliver the energy objectives of policy. A simple and absolute nonsense on the science fact. Not a debate, no consensus appropriate. The only way they can be used to harvest their subsidies is with fossil on the grid to push off when they are working, deliver most of the output and 100% backup when its dark/the wind don’t blow. A wholly parasitic and pointless duplication, because when the fossil goes, only nuclear has the enrgy density and controllability/reiability to replace the energy fossil fuels used to generate.
Renewables cannot be made less weak or intermittent by subidies, this is the fundamental property of the energy source, not the expensive collectors.
Nuclear needs no “CO2 offsetting” renewables. It’s also cheaper with ALL costs considered than any renewable. Check the IEA reports, ignore the BS.
The problem is the gullible pubic has been sold this deceitful pseudo science/pseudo engineering bullshit to enrich renewable subsidy farmers and academic careers in climate pseudo science, also Washington lobbyists and insiders in the subsidy trough, and are too poorly educated and ignorant to understand even the basic science, even if they know to test assertions. How do you change the inability of people to understand the simple facts at the most basic level, or even take an interest in the fraud perpetrated upon them by the climate change renewable energy protection racket? There is no easy money in telling the people the truth. There is no real climate problem on the measured facts, and the supposed solution will only make it expensively worse, or n compared to replacing fossil with nuclear in due course. Nothing else makes sense, saving hydro in rocky mountainous territory of low value for other uses.Obs.
But you can’t fix stupid……
When you have to rely on insults and straw-man arguments, your argument is weak.
Dr. Jay Lehr and Mr. Tom Harris are both associates of the pro-fossil fuel think-tank the Heartland Institute. Mr. Harris & Dr. Lehr call those who accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change “climate change zealots.”
If you have read Mr. Harris’ op-eds, his insults are hardly surprising. Tom Harris attack those who disagree with them about human-caused climate change calling them “extreme” and “anti-human.” (Source “Extreme Environmentalists Are Anti-Human” by Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball, Jan 9, 2019, PJ Media”
Dr. Lehr & Mr. Harris writes green energy is “claimed to be environmentally friendly and produces no pollution.” This is a straw-man argument. No one has ever claimed green energy produces no pollution. Green energy is far more environmentally friendly than Mr. Harris’ and Dr. Lehr’s pro-coal, pro-fracking and pro-fossil fuel agenda. {Sources: 1)”Hydraulic fracturing is still misunderstood” by Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, Oct 12, 2018, Albuquerque Journal 2)”Clean coal for the future” Tom Harris, Feb 9, 2018, Idaho Press 3)”Coal key to national security strategy” Tom Harris, Jan 13, 2018, The Spectrum 4)”Climate scare must be debunked for coal to recover” Tom Harris, Jan 2, 2018, Superior Telegram 5)”Harris: Coal has many uses” Tom Harris, Sep 3, 2018, Casper Star Tribune}
This is the classic argument that the only reason someone would oppose the climate change agenda is involvement with the fossil fuel industry. If so, where is my check? Below Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys does an excellent job in explaining the realities.
The Green New Deal is a total scam being planed by the Democrats and the Globalists as well as the various groups of Eco-Freaks from the comfort of their New York Penthouse