By Rich Kozlovich
Earlier in the week I noted that I had seen a show on PBS promoting all sorts of greenie foolishness regarding alternative energy. One stated that if we had continued down that road started by President Carter 30 years ago we would now have all the alternative energy problems solved. Baloney! I said then that it had to have been clear to engineers then that wind power was unworkable as a viable energy source for the country.
We absolutely know there is no technology that will give wind energy the output necessary to overturn the need for conventional power plants. We have history that tells us it won't work; we have engineers that tell us that there is no technology in existence that can make it work; so why are we spending untold billions to insist that everyone "WILL" do it?
In an article entitled, “Wind power truly in the realm of mysticism”, by nuclear physicist, Dr. Kemm notes: “Wind power paranoia has bypassed science logic and is well and truly in the realm of mysticism. Let me state categorically that, as a physicist, I am in favour of wind power that is genuinely economically viable. The problem is that large-scale wind power fed into a national grid is just not viable – either economically or practically – from an engineering stand point." Are we to believe that he is the only one to recognize the engineering impossibility of wind power?
There are lots of positive statements from many sources that are promoting wind energy, including this one from a “South Africa from the wind lobby, which says it is striving for 20% of national demand to be met by wind power by 2025.” You mean the best hope they have is to generate 20% after another 14 years? How many wind farms will that take? How much will that cost? How much will that generate when the wind isn’t blowing?
“A spokesperson of the South African Wind Energy Association was quoted in the media as saying: “Contrary to what most believe, a 30 000 MW wind energy plant would have an average daily minimum power output of 7 000 MW and would displace 6 000 MW of conventional coal or nuclear power base load.”
Ok….if the “average” output is 7000 MW, out of a potential 30,000 MW peak output….what is the lowest output potential. Remember they are saying “average” output. The lowest is zero. When the wind doesn’t blow no energy is produced and we do not have any kind of battery power that would allow for storage when the wind blows that would take care of all of those days with no wind. At a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant with 30,000 NW of peak power….you can get 30,000 MW of power as long as you need to run the plant at peak performance. As for replacing other energy sources….baloney! Those conventional power plants would have to be built, maintained and kept on line to backup every form of alternative energy that is being considered, whether it is wind or solar, unless they can do it magically with some form of green mystic energy.
Do those who promote alternative sources understand the realities of this? Yes, because he quotes the wind power people as saying; “It will involve close interaction between the private and public sectors to ensure technical parameters and electricity grid designs are appropriate to facilitate it.” In other words they will need tax breaks, subsidies and backup systems so that we will be paying for energy production we aren’t using to promote energy production that we don’t need. It will not be society that reaps the rewards from all of this, it will be these green energy producers who will be feeding on the public through higher rates, higher taxes, reduced availabilty or all three...and all unnecessary.
First it was an argument of finite resources. We were supposedly running out of oil and natural gas. That has been proven to be absolutely false. Then we were told it was to save the planet from global warming based on speculative and fraudulent science. Here is what we really need to get. There is no global warming or cooling or climate changing that is being caused by anything mankind does. There is no need for alternative energy sources since we have enough oil, natural gas and coal to last us for 200 years. So why are we spending billions to find ways of eliminating cheap energy?
It really is time that we put away this mystical delusion of producing alternative energy on a large scale. It is a delusional greenie dream that is turning into an economic and engineering nightmare. Green is a religion based on mysticism. We really do need to get that. The ancient Druids would be very comfortable with today’s green movement.