Wind and solar energy are both essentially obsolete technologies. There is a reason why only the very rich or the very adventurous sail across oceans: the wind is unreliable, and at best produces relatively little energy. Nevertheless, liberals have concocted fantasies whereby all of our electricity, or perhaps our entire economy, will be powered by those fickle sources.
There are a number of reasons wind and solar are destined to fail and never happen, the primary one being land use.
Why is land use such a problem for wind and solar, but not for coal, nuclear or natural gas? Because wind and solar are pathetically low-intensity energy sources. Wind and solar produce so little energy per square mile, an enormous amount of land would have to be devoted to panels and turbines if we seriously tried to get all of our present electricity needs from those weak sources.
Germany undertook to mandate wind energy, but its mandates have fallen flat because of public opposition to specific wind projects. The same thing is happening in communities that have moved to reject or restrict wind projects. Public opposition promises to bring the Green New Deal to a screeching halt.
Let’s hope so, Fred. We are already overcommitted.
PS: Green Dreams Made Europe Vulnerable to a Mega Blackout
Roughly 60 million people lost power for twelve hours this week in Spain, Portugal, and parts of southern France, prompting absolute chaos. For once, even the usual defenders of solar and wind power admit that green energy bears at least some of the blame.
The disaster comes roughly a week after Spain became, for the first time, temporarily powered entirely by wind, solar, and hydropower during a weekday, which pro-solar publications touted as a huge success. Just before the blackout, solar and wind energy accounted for almost 80 percent of electricity production in the country, according to publications touted as a huge success. Just before the blackout, solar and wind energy accounted for almost 80 percent of electricity production in the country, according to snapshots of utility data. The flexible natural gas systems normally required to back up unreliable green energy systems were providing only 3 percent.
A wide variety of causes could have triggered the event, ranging from a highly implausible space-based nuclear weapons test and Russian hackers to simple mismanagement and unspecified “rare atmospheric phenomena.” But the fact remains that Spain and Portugal are over reliant on politically favored green energy. It would not be a surprise if the Iberian power grid simply could not absorb the cascading disruption.
Fred, it makes one wonder what the Spanish people were thinking when they allowed this to happen.
Thanks for posting the excellent Epstein. Fred is right to add the land-hog nature of wind/solar. Wind requires ~426 times as much land to produce a unit of energy as nuclear or coal…about 236 times as much land as nat gas. Properly analyzed, wind/solar are not environmentally net beneficial.
From a persuasion standpoint in a superficial–thank you govt schools–electorate, I don’t think Epstein should use the words “dilute” and “intermittent” instead of “weak” and “unreliable.” Wind/solar are weak and unreliable and not kind to the environment.
Good points, J. Sobran. Yes, they ARE weak and unreliable.
Wind and solar energy are both essentially obsolete technologies. There is a reason why only the very rich or the very adventurous sail across oceans: the wind is unreliable, and at best produces relatively little energy. Nevertheless, liberals have concocted fantasies whereby all of our electricity, or perhaps our entire economy, will be powered by those fickle sources.
There are a number of reasons wind and solar are destined to fail and never happen, the primary one being land use.
Why is land use such a problem for wind and solar, but not for coal, nuclear or natural gas? Because wind and solar are pathetically low-intensity energy sources. Wind and solar produce so little energy per square mile, an enormous amount of land would have to be devoted to panels and turbines if we seriously tried to get all of our present electricity needs from those weak sources.
Germany undertook to mandate wind energy, but its mandates have fallen flat because of public opposition to specific wind projects. The same thing is happening in communities that have moved to reject or restrict wind projects. Public opposition promises to bring the Green New Deal to a screeching halt.
Let’s hope so, Fred. We are already overcommitted.
PS: Green Dreams Made Europe Vulnerable to a Mega Blackout
Roughly 60 million people lost power for twelve hours this week in Spain, Portugal, and parts of southern France, prompting absolute chaos. For once, even the usual defenders of solar and wind power admit that green energy bears at least some of the blame.
The disaster comes roughly a week after Spain became, for the first time, temporarily powered entirely by wind, solar, and hydropower during a weekday, which pro-solar publications touted as a huge success. Just before the blackout, solar and wind energy accounted for almost 80 percent of electricity production in the country, according to publications touted as a huge success. Just before the blackout, solar and wind energy accounted for almost 80 percent of electricity production in the country, according to snapshots of utility data. The flexible natural gas systems normally required to back up unreliable green energy systems were providing only 3 percent.
A wide variety of causes could have triggered the event, ranging from a highly implausible space-based nuclear weapons test and Russian hackers to simple mismanagement and unspecified “rare atmospheric phenomena.” But the fact remains that Spain and Portugal are over reliant on politically favored green energy. It would not be a surprise if the Iberian power grid simply could not absorb the cascading disruption.
Fred, it makes one wonder what the Spanish people were thinking when they allowed this to happen.
Thanks for posting the excellent Epstein. Fred is right to add the land-hog nature of wind/solar. Wind requires ~426 times as much land to produce a unit of energy as nuclear or coal…about 236 times as much land as nat gas. Properly analyzed, wind/solar are not environmentally net beneficial.
From a persuasion standpoint in a superficial–thank you govt schools–electorate, I don’t think Epstein should use the words “dilute” and “intermittent” instead of “weak” and “unreliable.” Wind/solar are weak and unreliable and not kind to the environment.
Good points, J. Sobran. Yes, they ARE weak and unreliable.