How To Make Wind And Solar Appear Cheaper
It is no secret that the Green dream of wind and solar energy cannot survive without huge Green taxation in the form of subsidies on all energy bills, the minute that there is talk of subsidy cuts the whole renewables industry goes into meltdown, if you need proof just look at Big Wind in the USA screaming when the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) that subsidies American Wind looked like it would not be renewed, or Britain where solar energy companies are suing the Government for cutting the subsidies paid for electricity generated by solar panels.
Any industry that is based on tax payer subsidy is not a real economically viable business, it is little different from any nationalized enterprise or government department, funded by the bottom less pit of the tax payer wallet.
Wind and solar are expensive, heavily over subsidized by governments because they are supposedly Green, and like a junkie, will never kick their subsidy habit, if you need further proof then consider how many years wind farms have been kept alive by the PTC in the United States, which started in 1992.
A recent study of wind farms in Britain and Denmark has concluded that the operational life of a wind turbine is only 50% of that quoted by the manufacturers, with governments and energy planners basing their projections on 25 year life spans the cost of the wind farm has just doubled.
All these inconvenient truths about renewables are recognized by the warming alarmists who now want to factor in the cost of burning fossil fuels, that could have been used instead for petrochemicals, to make renewable energy look cheaper:
Not switching to renewable energy costs $9bn a day as fossil fuels are burned that could otherwise be used as an industrial resource for plastics and other petrochemicals. A study by the World Future Council calls for the cost of not switching to clean energy sources to be factored in when assessing the expense of switching to renewable energy.
$9bn a day, around $3.3tn a year, and wow look at that saving, renewables definitely are the buy of the century, and of course the World Future Council are impartial when it comes to renewable energy and the Green Agenda.
The report entitled “The Monetary Cost of the Non-Use of Renewable Energies starts off:
It is often claimed that renewables are still too costly and not yet competitive with conventional energy sources. But what costs are incurred when renewable energies are not used? Every day during which potential renewable energy sources are not utilised but exhaustible fossil fuels burnt instead speeds up the depletion of these non-renewable fuels. Using burnt fossil fuels for nonenergy related purposes (e.g. in the petro-chemical industry) in the future is obviously impossible. Thus, their burning – whenever they could have been replaced by renewables – is costly capital destruction. This study concludes that, estimated conservatively, the future usage loss resulting from our current oil, gas and coal consumption is between 3.2 and 3.4 trillion US Dollars per year
The use of fossil fuels for the petrochemical industry is a new angle for Big Green, according to most of the Green and Liberal NGOs the vast majority of the oil, gas and coal reserves need to stay in the ground, if we are to avoid
unprecedented unparalleled catastrophic temperature rise by 2100.
The sun and the winds are free. Thus the costs of renewable energy are almost exclusively fixed extraction costs, whilst the use of fossil fuels incurs significant variable costs (reflecting the value of the fuels burnt). The difference between renewables and fossil fuels is not only the zero cost of renewables but also that they will never be exhausted.
Renewables are not inexhaustible, this ignores the important fact that renewable energy can be generated only for as long as there are sufficient resources of concrete, rare earth metals, glass and other materials used to construct wind turbines and solar panels, once these resources are gone, so are wind and solar.
The renewable energy not used today thus cannot replace fossil fuel raw materials that, having been burnt as energy, are lost forever. This means that the use these raw materials could have had
in the future is lost and additional costs will be incurred to replace them.
To calculate the loss incurred, the alternative use value of the burnt fossil fuels must be estimated.
It is increasingly clear that, by remodelling our energy-systems, fossil fuels can be substituted by renewables.
The report ignores the intermittency of wind and solar and the need to have gas and coal fired power stations on standby to instantly meet consumer demand when wind and solar are unable to do so, without fossil fuels the lights go out when there is no wind and the sun has set.
The report is just another rehash of the same failed Green ideas we have heard time and time again, this time with a tenuous attempt to make wind and solar look attractive and cheaper than they really are.
The full report in PDF format is available here.
Posted on January 31, 2013, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Lies, Green Subsidy, Green Taxation, Renewables and tagged climate, Environment, Renewable Energy, World Future Council. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.