Unfortunately, Many Pro-Nuke People Are Anti-Renewables
One of the members of the pro-nuke group at which I hang out writes: In an amazing admission, environmentalists are now acknowledging that they were wrong to have promoted biofuels! This came about due to the overwhelming evidence that biofuels are a NET environmental liability. I fully expect that in the not-too-distant future that environmentalists will make a similar begrudging concession about industrial wind energy. No scientific assessment has concluded that wind energy is a Net Societal Benefit — because it’s not.
A few points, if I may:
• All decent people, whether they’re environmentalists or not, admit mistakes when they realize they’ve been wrong. There should be nothing “amazing” about this whatsoever.
• The initial appeal of biofuels was breaking the US dependence on foreign oil; this predated most of our current-day environmental concerns.
• If you want to disagree with the well-supported and widely accepted belief that wind energy is good for our society overall, you should offer some evidence. Not to be snide, but “good luck with that.”
It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on those who support wind power.
Some aspects of this cannot be settled by rational discussion or the presentation of scientific evidence because they are inherently subjective, and some people will prefer to be persuaded by dogma than reason
e.g. those who continue to assert substantial adverse health impacts associated with living close to wind farms when there is absolutely no pier reviewed scientific data to support their position, and mountains of data to refute it.
No 2 people will ever entirely agree about aesthetics so that whilst one person regards a wind farm in full operation as a majestic sight, another looking at the same view will see an eyesore.
In regards to emissions, wind farms release far fewer kg of CO2 per MWh of power generated than any fossil fueled generation – even taking into account emissions associated with mining of raw materials, energy used in construction, and a slight efficiency penalty experienced by load following power plants as a result of wind’s variability. There are many studies showing this.
Are there environmental impacts from wind power? Yes there are.
Bird and Bat casualties – even a well designed and planned wind farm will cause an occasional casualty though probably far less than pet cats, motor vehicles, windows, or overhead power lines.
Wind farms will always have a visual impact, and make a certain amount of noise – this is what the planning process is for – to balance the advantages of low emission power generation against the cost of visual, auditory and other impacts on the community.
Also, some forms of wind generator use large quantities of rare earth metals – the extraction of which in some cases has a large environmental impact!
Compare all of the above with the massive visual and pollution, impacts of open cast coal or shale oil mining, then take into account emissions of not just CO2 but mercury, radioactive isotopes, and massive quantities of particles small enough to get into the lungs and cause damage, and it is very hard to see any reasonable case for saying that wind power has worse environmental impacts than coal or shale oil based power generation, or even the impacts of conventionally extracted natural gas.
@ Gary and Frank
Craig hits a Grand Slam there are many deniers for many reasons some is ignorance, some is stupidity and some is economic interest – like vested money. then there is the dogmatic opposition as Gary pointed out. correctly.
Tired of the endless circular discussion Study after study has shown that wind Energy generates over $ 75 per MWHr of Social benefits over its societal costs of around mid $ 25 or so so a 3 to 1 Benefit to Cost ratio.
Total global wind is in the mid 430 GW range now with China leading and US number 2. European countries are reducing carbon emissions, generating ever increasing MW’s and the UK, Scotland and Netherlands and Germany as well as Portugal are benefiting . It lowers whole sale price of energy at certain time periods but yes it needs back up which is all part of the integrated modular network of various generation sources . Diversity of supply is a good thing.
The level of investment is so Awesome Huge $$$$ that as I said before the people doing it could not be that stupid as some of the ardent pro nuke doom sayers claim it all to be.
Gas industry likes it as they sell more gas for fast ramp turbines , they integrate real well.
Maybe the reason they make All the noise is because it is working and that is going to make their 66 year Crusade to atomize the planet with nuclear power Harder to do! called competition!
At the end of the day its all about Market Share folks.
Over 1,000,000 people work in Wind energy now good tax base .
here are energy subsidy totals for US .
Energy resource Cumulative incentives (billions) Source
Total fossil $619 Source NEI, CRS, JCT, DOE
Nuclear *$197 DBL, CRS, JCT,DOE; *(1947-2015, vs 1950-2015 for other energy sources)
Wind $27 JCT, CRS, Treasury, DOE
Other Renewables (including biofuels and hydropower) $114 NEI, JCT, CRS, Treasury,DOE
Total $957
Oil and gas have had subsidies for close to 100 years. Next in line is the Nuclear Genie from 1947 forward..
Wind is chump change and its cost going down and it is working!
Excuse the formatting it was hard to import this data, even the NEI Nuclear Energy Instutute chimed in.
Wind is an important part of the solution and not the total solution. Carry On
Gary @ Silent Running
Thank you both – excellent contributions. It is a serious subject and I recognise your hearts and minds are in the conversation. But is there something missing here?
You both seem to have well and truly taken care of the current and future global energy policies debate and I support your views wholeheartedly. Abundant and cost effective energy for all people of the world plus new age industries driving a new level of prosperity and advancement for all it seems.
Mission accomplished.
But there remains another separate but desperately serious issue though, that being the dangerous escalating trends in greenhouse gasses [caused largely by fossil fuels usage] and causing all sorts of worsening negative scenarios globally, that I believe everyone in the world with at least half a brain is aware of, and would most certainly conclude that it is the imperative of all governments to devise and implement urgent technological based policies that guarantee a permanent reversal of this global catastrophic trend.
Have I summed this up correctly, and if so Gary and Silent Running have you any (in depth and practical) ideas on good government’s policies that will guarantee to permanently solve over time this critical global issue please.
PS. I always stress the word global in my commentary whether it is in print or in the classroom. These are global issues we are discussing and it is a good habit to get into, to expand the mindset beyond our own individual shores. In doing so it brings into stark reality the important thinking concept of “those who have plenty of it” and “those who don’t have any or enough of it” across the worlds continents.
Lawrence Coomber
@ Laurence
Meant to get back with You but work and tasks have kept me busy.
Thanks for recognizing some of the comments and ideas as part of the solution.
The problem as you state is over whelming despite good efforts in cleaner technology, down sizing of demand, improvements in end use efficiency which will continue to dominate the marketplace.
The addition of millions and millions of new A/C units globally is a real threat to erasing the reductions in CO 2 etc. that we have made to date. Serious reality.
I think a carbon tax with a tax filing rebate component would be a good External Pricing Driver that would definitely influence design and selection of energy options in a cleaner life cycle both internal / external societal cost direction.
It would speed up the phasing out of dirty coal and put real pressure on the coal sector to find a way to try to clean up their product or suffer the market consequences.
In the US perhaps the DOE and others should try to fund some underground coal cooking and converting into a syn gas and then integrate that into the gas infrastructure . Many Green s will shudder at this but give the coal gang once last chance so that they get a shot at remaining viable in market. I try to be Fair even though I am down on coal period.
if this techically works then we could export the technology to China and India and the other big countries that have a large installed base of coal plants. Convert them to the Syn gas .
This may not be technically doable I only mention this in a effort to step beyond dogma and give the coal burners some Hope.
Also there are close to 8,000 coal plants out there so I am targeting a Big Segment of the cause of the global warming problem.
reducing global Warming is l;ike reducing the budget in a large corporation or entity. To attain Real Savings you have to go where the money is and you can’t get smug and remain on the margins otherwise your impact will be Marginal!
If cooking coal underground makes any technical and economic sense then good if not then tax it out of business and be done with it use the money to fund replacements fuel for the needed energy Transformation the World needs to make it.
Instead of making war all over the place Governments could coordinate a program to get large shipping ships converted to cleaner fuel and stop burning # 2 bunker oil crude stuff.! The Global shipping economy is probably the second largest pollution source.
Maybe the UN could reconstitute itself for a change and do something with real impact!
Once gasoline prices ramp up in 4 or 6 years EV’s should take off in sales and the transportation sector could get greener . We will have closed another 100 coal plants by this time most likely so we will be down to the last 150 or so. So impact will be positive. The electricity for the EV will be much cleaner than it has been in past.
Transportation contributes to a big portion of the problem. Most people get fixated on the power sector and overlook that is is has only been around 32 % of the cause of the emission problem.
And for the fans of the Nuclear Genie well they may make a contribution in 2025 or so after years of false starts and unfulfilled promises. To Be determined ???!!!///!!
Thanks , Take care