“By eliminating wind and solar from the 2014–2035 projections, almost $3 trillion in capital costs would be saved globally without any significant loss in needed power generation capacity.”
Part 1 of this series (yesterday) provided an analysis of the global use of primary energy sources. It showed that in projections to 2035 the new renewables of industrial wind turbines and solar panels will provide only about 5 percent of our total primary energy consumption.
This post narrows the focus to the electricity sector where some primary energy sources, the so-called “clean” technologies (wind, solar, hydro and nuclear), are almost exclusively used. This indicates why this sector is the focus for much of the very questionable, ineffective ‘revolutionary’ changes being advocated today.
The trends in electricity-generation primary-energy use are much the same as in overall use, that is, fossil fuels dominate notably, to date and as projected to 2035, in spite of substantial future investments in new wind and solar plant implementation of almost $3 trillion.…
“Reality is best expressed in the absolute level of consumption for each primary-energy source, both the total and the growth—supplemented by some use of percentages. Using these measures, we can say that, throughout the period 1990 to 2035, fossil-fuel consumption was and will be persistently more significant than wind and solar combined.”
Claims are frequently made that wind power and solar power are the “fastest growing” energy sources, meaning that the world is transitioning away from fossil fuels. Let’s see if this withstands examination.
Such claims are usually expressed in terms of percentage growth over time or by percentages of the total. While mathematically correct, and often misleadingly worded (e.g., note my use of “fastest growing”), these are not reasonable representations of what is actually happening.
Reality is best expressed in the absolute level of consumption for each primary-energy source, both the total and the growth—supplemented by some use of percentages.…
“Even with carbon emissions valued at $50 per metric ton, nuclear, hydro and natural gas combined cycle generation plants have far more net benefits than either wind or solar.”
The recent paper by Charles Frank of the Brookings Institution, “The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies” provides a reasonably broad, detailed analysis of the lack of value in pursing policies of implementing wind and solar industrial-scale generation plants to reduce carbon emissions. This analysis, however, while on track, misses some very important considerations that strengthen the already negative verdict.
In summary, the paper finds: