| Common Error No. 99 |
 |
 |
| Written by Dr Madsen Pirie |
| Wednesday, 23 April 2008 06:02 |
|
99. "We should switch all our energy to derive from renewable sources."
Bookmark
Comments (6)
Prior assumption
written by Frederick Davies, April 23, 2008
All that is if you believe the Anthropogenic Global Warming claptrap, that is.
the error is in your title
written by alastair harris, April 23, 2008
one of the physical laws is the convservation of energy - so you can neither use it up nor make it! Anything else is just daft politics.
...
written by robert arbon, April 23, 2008
I believe you're forgetting a few points: 1) Some countries, for example Norway (99%) and Brazil (90%) cope very well with almost total reliance on renewables i.e. hydroelectric power. 2) The price of fossil fuels will continue to rise in the long term assuming of course the model for it's production in the earth is true. 3) We will undoubtedly figure out ways to store energy more efficiently (other than pumped hydro) and so mitigate a lot the problems with wind energy.
This in mind I think a future without renewable energy sources is ridiculous, Pv cells will become efficient, we will be storing wind energy and this will be made relatively affordable in light of the high prices of oil as it starts to peak. On the other hand, this current renewables zealotry and endless subsidisation is madness in my opinion, so yes I agree with your take on this, however some acknowledgment of the time scales involved would be nice.
...
written by Steve Giess, April 23, 2008
Madsen, I agree with most of what you say. Where I differ is only in the total cost of Carbon Dioxide capture, and this in terms of the energy consumed to do it compared to the energy released by burning the coal. I suspect the net energy produced will be small - and so we would have to burn through our stocks of coal at a fast rate, hence this solution will not work for long. Some form of nuclear power is going to be needed in the long run. In terms of available material it will have to be fusion - and that is still, 50 years on from the early ZETA work, in the research phase.
By the Way: I have noticed how the terms 'Carbon capture' or 'Carbon free' are bandied about. Carbon itself is not a problem - it is Carbon Dioxide that may be (I'm still a GW sceptic). Also the term 'Carbon free' is a double misnomer. What is really mean is "Net Cardon Dioxide Neutral". Consider that 'Carbon free' housing uses wood as a building material, and that the inhabitants of this housing will be breathing out Carbon Dioxide!
it is all time relative
written by Oli, April 23, 2008
History shows us that we are all aiming for free energy in some form or other. It used to be Peat, then Wood, then coal, now oil, and it will become hydrogen / nuclear as soon as we can find a cost effective solution.
The point is, it needs the ego rubbing of 'saving the planet' to create a market for this stuff to get cheap enough for people to buy. The cheaper it gets, the more arguments there will be to go to the next level in a weird anti consumerist marketing mix! The point you need to make is that government need not get involved in this lark. The markets is working perfectly well!
Rewiring nature written by Tom Davis, April 23, 2008
'Renewable' energy resources are ultimately reliant on capturing and converting energy from a natural system. The conversion process removes energy from a natural system (such as the wind) to the power grid to be released mostly in urban centers. Once the wind has been processed by the windmills, it has less energy for doing whatever it would have otherwise done -- maybe it won't pollinate some tree, or maybe it won't make it over the mountains, etc. But the energy released by converting the electricty into air conditioning, automotive power, lighting, etc is ultimately mostly going to be heat, which will produce a convection current, creating new wind near the urban center. That is, we're moving wind from one location to another.
The problem is, that right now, we're not really doing the math to find out what that cost is going to be. At current rates of conversion, there probably isn't a huge difference, but if we were to use only wind, water, geothermal, tidal, and solar (including biofuels) to power our cities and industry the effects would undoubtably be noticable. Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
This is not a practical proposition from the standpoint of either cost or technology. Wind-power is uneconomic without subsidies, and involves huge energy expenditure in construction and maintenance of its wind farms. Rooftop windmills in urban areas, for example, take more energy to produce than they themselves generate. Since winds are unreliable, wind power necessitates huge back-up sources to be on standby. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
About the ASI
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Join our email list
Email info@adamsmith.org if you would like to subscribe to our fortnightly e-bulletin.
