The true price of power
I have long known that there is nothing remotely `green’ about putting wind farms all over the countryside, with their eagle-slicing, bat-popping, subsidy-eating, rare-earth-demanding, steel-rich, intermittent-output characteristics. But until I read Robert Bryce’s superb and sober new book Power Hungry, I had not realised just how dreadfully bad for the environment nearly all renewable energy is.
Bryce calculates that one Texas nuclear plant generates about 56 watts per square metre. This compares with 53 for gas turbines, 1.2 for wind, 6.7 for solar or 0.05 for corn ethanol. Sorry, but what is so green about using 45 times as much land – and ten times as much steel – to produce the same amount of power? It does not surprise me that those with vested interest in renewables close their minds to this, but it genuinely baffles me that other people don’t get it.
I’ve dealt with bird killing elsewhere, but Bryce contrasts the prosecution of Exxon for killing 85 birds in uncovered tanks with the fact that:
Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year were being killed by U.S. wind turbines. And yet, the Department of Justice won’t press charges. `Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card’ Fry told me.
Bryce goes on to show that wind power does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. At all. Even in Denmark, with its unique ability to switch Norwegian hydro plants on and off when needed:
If Denmark’s huge wind-power sector were reducing carbon dioxide emissions, you’d expect the Danes to be bragging about it, right? Well, guess what? They’re not...The September 2009 study by CEPOS [a Copenhagen think thank] said that Denmark’s wind industry `saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor carbon dioxide emissions’.
Then there’s the need for long transmission lines to link up remote renewable power plants with customers. Recently wind farms in Oregon were forced to feather their blades because they were producing far too much power for the local grid during a sudden storm. The solution is better linkage between local grids, but that means more pylons. Wind alone will require 40,000 miles of new power lines – covering an area the size of Rhode Island.
Then there are the rare earths, or lanthanides. The wind industry relies almost entirely on neodymium-iron-boron magnets, importing all the neodymium from China.
Environmental activists in the United States and other countries may lust mightily for a high-tech, hybrid-electric no-carbon, super-hyphenated future. But the reality is that that vision depends mightily on lanthanides and lithium. That means mining. And China controls nearly all the world’s existing mines that produce lanthanides.
Bryce’s book is more than a demolition of renewable energy. It contains a fascinating and detailed account of the shale gas revolution and of the latest developments in modular nuclear technology. It makes a persuasive case that this century will be dominated by `N2N’ energy – natural gas to nuclear – and that the consequence of the rise of both will be continuing steady decarbonisation of the economy. This is the best book on energy I have read. It confirms my optimism – and my rejection of the renewable myth.
Comments (12)
Spot on, Matt. It's a good book.
You didn't mention another specific point: that every Watt of wind power capacity has to have a Watt of conventional capacity to back it up, for when the wind isn't blowing. This isn't just a theoretical issue: we can get periods of a weeks or more in Northern Europe when a static high pressure weather systems reduces wind speeds to practically zero. What this boils down to is building extra gas turbine power station to back up the windmills (because coal and nuclear can't be brought online quickly enough to act as backup for wind power).
There was a wind power apologia in the latest New Scientist (July 24, p24, "Blowin' In The Wind"), which I thought smelled funny. I'd be interested to read a blog entry on that...
Just to be really boring again on my specialist subject of lanthanides (and, err, as possibly one of the only people in the past decade who has actually imported lanthanides *into* China).
It's true that China has 95% of the world's production of rare earths (aka lanthanides). But that really isn't a problem. We can find rare earth ores all over the place. They're just not very rare, d'ye see?
What is a problem is that China has the only (large scale) plants capable of separating them. They are (for reasons to do with the 4f electron shell, complex and boring stuff) what is known in technical terms as "a right bugger" to separate.
It the separation plants (new ones are usually costed at $300 million and up) which China has the choke hold on.
You make a good argument, but it's not helping in solving the problem. Quite a portion of green energy is probably a myth, but IMHO that's far less concerning than the certainties we have learned about the fossil and nuclear energy technology.
Birds flying into wind turbines is nasty, but maybe sonic beacons can warn them. There are solutions to most of the problems of renewable energies. The exact opposite is IMHO true for nuclear and fossil energies: toxic waste, health problems etc.
And: yes, it's totally OK to panic and reject the facts if they are so bad.
Is there something to assume about the idea of promoting renewable energies? Please come clean, the three of you, and know the ideological viewpoints about that issue, thank you.
To Matt Ridley: can you explain to me about the existence of renewable energies from a varying perspective? But beware, though: do not let some people fighting over the issue of promoting renewable energies. They might confuse anyone else - and contradict the goals of ensuring a better understanding of environmental conservation & protection and its contributory impact on public policies. And please do not fail, and do not let excessive politicking which put the rationale of ordinary people around the world such as me at risk currently. Thank you, too, Ridley.
Rational optimist? Or over-simplifier of reality? Now that you have looked into renewables, can you write a lucid, informed, pragmatic - and if you like, optimistic - analysis of how we will supply energy to the increasingly wealthy population of the world for the next 20 years without leaving our descendents without an energy source and with a horribly changed climate? A rational comparison of the future of the supply of fossil fuels, renewable technology and their respective risks is the place to start. If you can do that, perhaps you can add something worth while to the energy debate. This one sided rant is totally misleading. Oh - and while you are at it - please define what you mean when you use the term "green". A new visitor to your page
Matt. Some years ago I read an article in American Scientist " A Grand Solar Plan" I believe it was called. Anyway, I was very impressed with not just how feasible it was, but how relatively little it cost. It seemed to have so many advantages over other renewable sources of power I was convinced that the debate over energy policy would end, and America at least, would throw all it's resources behind solar. Did you read the article? And if so what do you think?
Those of you who are implying that Mr. Ridley and others who are not keen on solar, wind, etc. must have some hidden agenda or ulterior axe to grind, are not contributing to the understanding and progress we need on this issue. It is far too easy to demonize your opponent and assume he is missing something intentionally (else why would he not see it?) while you yourself might be the one with the blind spot.
Solar is not sufficient for our baseline electric needs and probably never will be (unless we can build a massive satellite array and somehow beam that power safely to earth's surface) for the simple reason that the sun does not always shine. Electricity is needed on-demand, and cannot be stored, so without some kind of huge backup system for the days when the sun is not shining (major breakthrough in batteries, perhaps) there is no current way to provide power on cloudy days, which is wholly insufficient.
Wind is insufficient for the same reason, i.e., the wind does not always blow. Again, backups are needed and special considerations need to be made for the times when the wind does not blow, and that involves burning fossil fuels.
These are not ideological points. These are hard facts about life on Earth. They relate to the fact that our globe spins and revolves around its star. This is the same set of facts that causes us to adhere to the surface of the earth via the force of gravity, and those who admit gravity are not ideological, are they? We have to be realistic.
For solar we need satellites that can capture the sun's rays 24/7 and without cloud cover. For wind and solar we need batteries so we can store excess power and 'flatten out' the curve. For nuclear we need neither of these. If you assume the technology to build solar satellite arrays and beam those to earth, you can also assume the technology to rid ourselves of nuclear waste by shooting it into the sun perhaps, so on that regard both technologies are even...EXCEPT we can start generating nuclear power now and deal with the waste problem later, but we can't do widescale solar now until we build the satellites. See the difference?
Jason. Calm down. I wasn't implying anything. If you take the trouble to download the article I quoted from Scientific American's website, I think you'll find they've covered all your criticisms.
[...] all about it here and in this fabulous new [...]
It's not politics that condemn renewables, it's physics. The power density of nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal are all superior (ounce for ounce) over wind, solar, and biofuel especially. As for toxicity, it's because our leaders shied away from nuclear, due to Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl, that we ended up with coal that produces low level radioactive fly-ash that gets stored behind dams.
These are not ideological points. These are hard facts about life on Earth. They relate to the fact that our globe spins and revolves around its star. This is the same set of facts that causes us to adhere to the surface of the earth via the force of gravity, and those who admit gravity are not ideological, are they? We have to be realistic.
<a href=http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/ >http://www.googlestore-tshirt.com/</a>
Perhaps a phenomenon has emerged relating to rather hard facts about life on earth, isn't it? "The Science" of climate change is an unknown sort of epic proportion if I am right.
To my knowledge in Matt Ridley's blogsite, a comment from hageladuki said it probably is: "This is the same set of facts that us to adhere to the surface of the earth via the force of gravity, and those who admit gravity are not ideological, are they? We have to be realistic." Are we ordinary people aware of this really? And how do we understand further regarding the philosopical and ideological phenomenon that is deemed as complex as I personally thought?
I suspect risk aversion through the "precautionary principle" if I am not mistaken - "precautionary principle" is a real concern not just among scientific experts, but also policymakers, and the public at large. Remember: environmentalism is a different sort of philosopical and ideological phenomenon as complicated as they thought to be.
Perhaps hageladuki and others need to be really aware of a very complex scenario today which is very, very, very messy indeed. They will also have to know their viewpoints well by telling themselves the truth regarding "The Science" of climate change. The acrimonious debates have failed to deliver results - and it is very confusing to present any such evidence regarding this.
I have felt to be saddened by the confusion it stems from the fact that the complex scientific issue itself is a sort of mixed bag, still.
For scientific experts, that needs a brilliant detective-like work - and people like me must stand up to ensure true fairness in science & technology. It is time for us to discuss the true merits of climate change, environmentalism and growth skepticism in a more balanced way.
It would be difficult for both sides to speak about these philosopical & ideological phenomenons - and the hard task of dealing with is really a matter of either supporting or oppsing "green austerity" policies that affect social & economic development and stability, environmental conservation & protection, public governance & safety, improvements & progress in scientific and technological capabilities, energy, communication & transportation improvements, and a lot more.
It time for all sides to discuss and cooperate on those concerns and put the differences aside, so we ordinary people can appreciate - and make a voice for - a formulaic approach for sustainable growth & development as well as fair & reasonable social reforms on the agenda.
Remember: Do not forget it. PERIOD.
And another thing: good intentions can be really mad, bad, and utterly dangerous - so choose ideas wisely. DO NOT FORGET IT, TOO!