American Thinker:
If the official definitions of renewable energy were logical, renewable energy would be defined as energy that does not emit CO2 and that is not using a resource in danger of running out anytime soon. But the definitions written into the laws of many states are not logical. Hydroelectric energy is mostly banned because the environmental movement hates dams. Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups. Both nuclear and hydro don’t emit CO2. Hydro doesn’t need fuel. Nuclear fuel is cheap and plentiful. A large number of prominent global warming activists, such as James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand have declared that nuclear is the only solution for the crisis that they imagine is approaching.
For those of us who don’t take global warming seriously, there is nothing wrong with using coal and natural gas to generate electricity. The CO2 emitted helps plants to grow better with less water, a great help to agriculture.
In approximately thirty states that mandate renewable energy, the only scalable forms of renewable energy allowed are wind and solar. California mandates that 60% of its electricity come from renewable energy by 2030. Nevada mandates 50% by 2030. There are other types of official renewable energy, but they can’t be easily scaled up. Examples are geothermal energy, wave energy, and garbage dump methane.
Wind and solar are erratic sources of energy. The output depends on the weather. Solar doesn’t work at night. Because they are erratic, there have to be backup plants, generally natural gas plants, that balance the erratic flow of electricity from wind or solar. The backup plants increase output when renewable energy output declines and vice versa. Because both wind and solar are subjected to periods of near zero output, the backup system has to be able to carry the entire load of the electric grid without the wind or solar. Neither wind nor solar can replace conventional plants. If you hear that a utility is replacing fossil fuel plants with wind or solar, that can’t happen. The most that can happen is that the fossil fuel plants will use less fuel when the wind or solar is generating electricity. For a natural gas plant, the gas to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity costs about $20. That $20 is the economic value of each megawatt-hour generated by wind or solar. Unsubsidized, wind or solar electricity, either one, costs about $80 a megawatt-hour to generate. The difference between $80 and $20 is the subsidy that has to be paid in order to use wind or solar. read more
In Calif garbage dump methane is being eliminated rather than used. We have been ordered to keep yard waste and food waste separated to prevent methane in the dumps. They will be inspecting our trash containers to make sure we comply. Prophecy; By 2030 if we don’t comply swat will knock down the doors at 2 a.m. and send us to re-education camps.
I did not read the entire article, only that which is offered above. Isn’t this common knowledge? I have stated it before and will state it again here, ANY policy that requires taxpayer subsidy is a terrible plan.
“Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell
Five and a half minutes worth…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKmz7OGcyzU
There’s others, but believe this one might be his most recent from last May…
While driving back and forth from a vacation home to WV (highest elev, 3,400 ft) to Montgomery Count (elev., 450 ft.), MD for three (3) years all year round, I used to bring my $2,650.00, TSI, professional-grade and calibrated CO2/Temp/RH meter with me and stop and measure these two areas during various times of the day year round, back and forth.
At 3,450 ft. (WV) elevation the average CO2 was at 370-ppm, and the WV Temp, was always 10 to 15-degrees-F cooler than MD. At 450 ft. (MD), the average CO2 was 385-ppm. Temp.
This included all measurements recortded at different times of the dfay andsame times, different days. Still the reults
OK. One last try at this (wasn’t able to beat the timer)…
While driving back and forth from a vacation home to WV (highest elev., 3,450 ft) to Montgomery County, MD (elev., 450 ft.) for three (3) years all year round, I used to bring my $2,650.00, TSI, professional-grade and calibrated CO2/Temp/RH meter with me and stop and measure these two areas during various times of the day, year round, back and forth.
At 3,450 feet (WV) elevation, the average CO2 was at 370 – 375-ppm, and the WV Temp, was always 10 to 15-degrees-F cooler than the MD.
At 450 ft. (MD), the average CO2 was 385 – 390-ppm. Temp. was always 10 – 15-degrees-F warmer than the WV area.
This included all measurements recorded at different times of the day and also same times, different days. Still the results were generally consistent.
The lower Temps in the upper mountains was likely due to lower CO2 levels, since both the measurements and the fact that CO2 is heavier than air, there was not enough CO2 in the mountains to warm the air to the higher levels found in MD, which is at a much lower elevation…
Just sayin’.
The old sayings still ring true:
“IF you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door”
Emphasis on ‘if’
When solar and wind become viable, it will appear everywhere on its own.
That’s a good one, Anymouse.
Here, also, is a Canadian (Dr. Tim Ball) for a further second opinion. He has several more on YouTube last time I looked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMYjzWSlI4
@ pianamusic. The adiabatic lapse rate for temp is about 3.5 deg f per 1000 feet. Doesn’t have anything to do with CO.
@Skyking. Thanks, for the correction.
True, as far as CO and CO2 are concerned, since atmospheric pressure and temperature decrease in the atmosphere with higher elevations away from Earth. However, I was assuming (as an excuse) that CO2 effects on temperature changes were ignored when the adiabatic tables were established, which shows no correlation regarding elevation affecting CO2 levels.
The truer measurement would likely be when there are established temperature changes due to green house effects from water mist and CO2. Then, the highest local temperature obtainable for CO2 would be one where it is measured at the lowest elevation and highest density CO2 point of a hypothetical column of air. However, a different test method would be needed to establish a CO2 (and water vapor) greenhouse contribution table (if needed) to determine the heating (or cooling) of the local atmospheric air column.
My home-made attempt at confirming doubts of climate change, at least, gave some perspective and amusement during those long drives through the mountains. It taught me that if I want to unnecessarily scare people with unusually high CO2 levels, then measure and record CO2 levels at, or close to, sea level.
Thanks, for the heads up.