I hope you are not experiencing a power blackout during Arctic cold.
Such circumstances are chilling public support for an energy transition.
Climate-change policy advocates may claim that “renewables” (wind and solar) are not only clean but great for the economy. The only thing lacking, they say, is the “political will” to oppose the “fossil fuel” lobby.
Actually, there is a huge dollars-and-cents issue, as the figure shows.
Solar panels for your house or in decentralized applications might be affordable, and the fuel is free. But when the cost of integration into a centralized system is taken into account, wind costs between 7 and 14 times more than hydrocarbons, and solar between 10 and 44 times more, according to economist Peter St Onge.
Then there’s the effect of weather on weather-dependent systems, at times of increased demand.
On Jan 14, 93.6% of Alberta’s energy was produced by hydrocarbons (“fossils”) and 0% by wind or solar. To replace Alberta’s hydrocarbon generating capacity would require 11,043 wind turbines 727,615 acres of solar panels.
In June, the “hail-proof” solar panels at a multi-million dollar, 5.2 megawatt solar farm in Scottsbluff, Nebraska were mostly destroyed by baseball-sized hail moving at 100 to 150 miles per hour. The region has some of the highest frequencies of hailstorms in the country, averaging seven to nine hailstorms per year. Yet, the area is still building solar plants, driven by federal and state incentives to deploy renewable energy.
Political candidates and climate activist groups should be asked specific questions about costs, weather damage, environmental impacts, and waste disposal.
Additional information:
- Outsmarting wind and solar lobbyists
- Renewables the cheapest form of energy “only for investors”: stopthesethings.com
- Land and materials cost of Green New Deal
- Turbines wipe out raptor nests for 5 miles