Guest essay by Ed Hoskins | Data for the USA, Germany and the UK since the year 2000.
These notes quantify the progress and achievement of the massive movement to install renewable energy solutions for electricity generation in Western Nations. They only concern the two most significant new renewable energy sources ie. Solar and Wind-power. They progressively gauge and quantify the nominal rated energy output for these sources and their capacity factors for the three major Western investors in renewable electricity generation, the USA, Germany and in fact to a lesser extent the UK.
The following data sources were reviewed.
United States of America: data available 2000 – 2012
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60197.pdf
Germany: data available from 1990 to 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
United Kingdom: data available 2008 – 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
These data provide installed “nameplate” capacity measured in Megawatts (MW) and energy output measured across the year in total Gigawatt hours, (GWh). Thus they do not provide directly comparable values as Megawatt nameplate capacity and the consequential actual energy outputs achieved. For this exercise the annual Gigawatt hours values were revised back to equivalent Megawatts for comparative purposes, accounting for the 8,760 hours in the year. This measure eliminates the effect of intermittency and non-dispatchability characterising renewable Energy power sources. It does make direct comparisons possible.
For comparative purposes a normal fossil fuelled power station is rated with a nameplate capacity of about 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt. Overall the cumulative outcomes show the scale of the differential between nations and the discrepancy between installed nameplate capacity and the actual energy output achieved so far as, as follows:
The three graphs below summarise the available comparative data for each country:
In the USA the contribution from wind-power now nominally amounts to about 16 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about 1 1/2 of a normal power station is provided by US solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity only reached 18.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was as much as 21.6%. The solar capacity value has declined significantly. This relatively high capacity figure is because most solar installations are in Southern, desert states, namely California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 26.7% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 24.3%.
The renewable energy investment in the USA nominally now contributes about 3.8% of electricity generation.
The 25 year investment in Germany’s the renewable energy has nominally contributed about the equivalent of about 6 normal power stations, (1 GW) from wind-power. Solar power nominally contributes about 3 more normal power stations. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 10.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the relatively low output capacity factor of 19.1% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set was only 17.0%.
The vast renewable investment in Germany now contributes to some 15.8% of nominal electricicity generation.
In the UK the nominal contribution from wind-power is now equivalent to about 3 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 6.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was rather higher at 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 28.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it only amounted to 22.5%.
The renewable investment in the UK nominally now amounts to 7.9% of electrical generation.
However there is a major problem with these renewable energy sources. Their electrical output is not dispatchable. Their output is entirely unable respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather, and certainly not necessarily when it is required.
For example solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons. Essentially solar power might only work effectively in Southern latitudes and it certainly does not do well in Northern Europe. In Germany the massive commitment to solar energy might well provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on some fine summer days either side of noon, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil.
See: http://www.ukpowergeneration.info
Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.
Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.
Overall the renewable energy output from these three major nations that have committed to massive investments in Renewable Energy amounts to a nominal ~31Gigawatts out of a total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts or only ~5.5%.
But even that amount of energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A cost analysis to complement this thorough capacity summary would be very welcome.
even you do so, you will have to had the cost of a blackout , ie a lost of wealth and even human lives.
These systems imply the need for intermediate power storage.
Yeah,so?
How about explaining what “Nameplate” means?
“Nameplate capacity, also known as the rated capacity, nominal capacity, installed capacity or maximum effect, refers to the intended technical full-load sustained output of a facility such as a power plant,[1][2] a chemical plant,[3] fuel plant,[4][5][6] metal refinery,[7] mine,[8] and many others.“
Anthony I am registering as I am not getting any emails through for over a week.
That 17.5 (typical) power stations did not have to be built is a great success story! Solar, wind, (and hydro) are not perfect but they are getting more and more efficient and the cost continues to decrease each year..
True, solar and wind do not happen to match the ideal dispatch curve, but that is a manageable problem, especially since they are a small component of power generation in most areas.
Looking at t the residential level, a typical household uses about 30kwh/day. Panels typically generate useful power about 6 hours per day, so a typical household would need about 5kw of panels. Cost of panels is about $0.80/watt or about $4k. Grid tied inverters are about $2k and installation about $2k so for about $8k a typical household can generate all of the power it uses. (LED light bulbs, more efficient appliances, and a little effort ought to be able to reduce that to about half.) Typical power cost is about $0.15/kwh $(4.50/day) or about $1642/yr. Not a bad payback, which is apparently why I get a couple calls a day from solar companies wanting to put solar panels on my roof and do a lease-back arrangement. Works even better for those of us on Tier 5 at about $0.35/kwh.
It is also possible to install batteries to provide power at night rather than using the grid, and with a smart controller, the power company could easily tell my system when to run off the grid, and when to run off batteries. Or even when to feed battery power back into the grid, if needed.
Also, I’m convinced we will see markets adapt, such as power hungry companies moving to where the energy is cheap, (near wind turbines) just as aluminum production moved to areas where inexpensive hydro energy was available previously.
The markets may not have yet figured out exactly how best to use the power that solar and wind generate, but you can bet they will.
The 17.5 power stations still exist. When the wind does not blow and the sun doesn’t shine the power still has to come from somewhere. The experience here in Australia is that there is still required a spinning reserve, that is turbines running under no load, ready to take the load when the wind drops. One of the oft quoted falacies of wind power is that if you have a widely distributed wind power system there is power being generated somewhere. In the Australian South East Interconnected grid, geographically one of the largest grids in the world, spanning 1400 km east to west, there have been times where no wind power has been generated. In fact at about 10:00am on 28.05.2011 the wind farms of south-east Australia were consuming, not generating power.
In Oregon and Washington the spinning reserve is hydro; see:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Yes Andrew, anywhere in the world you have to have a base load generation system that is, to some extent, flexible, to take up power requirements when so-called renewables fail to do so, or as power requirements dictate.
While I am here, you mention the word “turbines”, which you correctly use in relation to steam powered generators, with the high pressure steam raised in boilers being fuelled by coal, “biomass”, nuclear fission, or gas. Wind generators are not turbines, because there is no nozzle ring to direct any wind on to a series of turbine blades fixed to a shaft. They are simply propellers, and their simplicity may be part of the problem in gaining much useful energy from them. Far better, and more correct to refer to them as wind powered generators, or… bloody windmills, as I prefer.
And what about apartment complexes?
And industy, and infrastructure (sewage/ water pumps), hospitals, etc etc.
No, they won’t generate all the power they use. For 6 hours, if it is sunny, they will generate all they use but need somewhere to dump the surplus (back into the grid). For the other 18 hours they will be drawing electricity from the grid, because the solar panels won’t be generating.
If they could store the excess when the sun is shining then they might be able to claim energy neutrality, except that with overcast days it will be back to the grid.
So the typical household uses about 30 kwt of electricity a day. Not in Africa or India or Indonesia . There it uses about 0.00 kwt a day. People of your ilk would prevent these developing nations from building coal fired power plants to alleviate their want. Don’t dare say you wouldn’t because warmists and other greens are doing just that. See the World Bank and other UN agencies for examples. And don’t say you, personally, wouldn’t do that If you run with a pack of wolves you are a wolf. You despicable greens are killing people with power shortages just as you killed people by banning DDT and are killing them with your objections to golden rice.
+10
http://archive.sheboyganpress.com/usatoday/article/5284631
Lomborg: Obama energy policy hurts African poor
Normally, I would pick out one or two bits tio highlight them. In this case, there is so much information that I can only recommend reading the full article.
Stan,
I lived and worked in Sub-Saharan Africa for four yours.
Western environmentalism is racist in the extreme.
four YEARS, ahem…
I think killing people (not middle class activists) is the plan. Most greens when tackled about the practicality of their schemes; fall back on the “need for a smaller population” mantra. “Eco fascism”
I guess you missed this Greg: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/analysis-energy-storage-cannot-solve-the-problem-of-intermittency-of-wind-or-solar-power/
“That 17.5 (typical) power stations did not have to be built is a great success story!
==========================================================
As pointed out, likely they were still built, or never closed, as reliable base load is required. Also, what you call a great success story over 14 years, was 100 percent replaced with only 4 to 5 months of average Chinese new coal fired plants, still being built at about one a week. (Now include India in this)
It is a massive failure of mal-investment.
You seriously suggest Aluminium production will move to somewhere where they can’t predict whether they will have any power in an hour’s time? And where it is “cheap” only by virtue of subsidies from the poor?
Batteries? Are you mad? think of the cost and the losses due to the energy conversions.
The biggest oxymoron of all time— renewable energy.
Greg: One small failure of logic in your comment: Using LED light bulbs (or any light bulbs) tends to a requirement of the need for light when it’s dark. – When it’s dark!
There’s a clue there.
Furthermore, the post determined that (in the UK) you would get a 6.7% power factor on you 5kW installation. Not a very great power return for such an outlay.
Too simplistic. The world is far more complicated than this. For example, we can go WEEKS with no sun over the winter. The misconception is that the solar panels power your home. They dont. They charge the batteries, which in turn powers the home. That means you have to have enough panels to charge the batteries which need to power a home for a week. So if you need X power to run your home for a day, you need 7X worth of batteries. To charge those batteries while also power your home, you need 2X worth of panels for each day. That means you need a minimum of 7-14X worth of panels on your home. Then after 6 to 8 years you have to replace all those batteries. Solar power is not a rational there-when-you-need-it source.
Read Anthony’s description of the system that he uses – see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/ . It is not battery-based: it uses an inverter and is grid-connected. Excess power is dumped into the grid. As a large scale solution, solar currently is impracticable (and may always be so – though human inventiveness should never be discounted). On the other hand, depending on where you live, small scale solar installations can make economic sense (and Anthony financial analysis seems pretty thorough on this point: a system that cost probably in the range of US$15 – 18K installed, will be repaid over the next 5 – 8 years from cost savings on power + some minor tax incentives).
Battery systems are really for people who seek to live “off the grid” (or, who actually DO live off the grid, in remote places).
And we are all supposed to be Poncho to your Don Quixote?
Dear Greg, you completely forget the immense source variability problem when serving scheduled usage. I think the self sustained individual solar Home is close to affordability, having performed myself many computing solutions for my own house (48°N latitude): It cannot match grid cost by not a ruining cost, but at condition to reduce my electricity consumption by 90% (heating moved to pellets oven, warm water too, reducing bulb usage, chasing my wife out of Internet…). Unfortunately I was obliged to stop when national authorities started to consider taxing individual renewable electricity production for the sake of …?
But back to aluminum smelting, you choosed the wrong example as it is the industry needing the most permanent supply of power….: Necessary batteries to cover night usage would be larger than a million inhabitants town….
How do you move a factory to where the wind is blowing that day?
Nice work, Ed! Now when are the electricity generation engineers going to start standing up and telling the politicians and the rest of us when the level of non-dispatchable vs dispatchable power reaches the point where (a) their power networks become unmanageable and (b) the huge hidden cross-subsidy from traditional generation to renewables renders traditional (coal and nuclear) base load power stations unviable? And lastly, when will the politicians figure out that if both these come to pass then the last thing on everyone’s mind will be CAGW, because they will be too busy looking for pitchforks to use on those who were responsible for (and profited from) this disaster in the making?
Based on data from the German Federal Environment Agency (“Umweltbundesamt”, July of 2013; http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4488.pdf), specific CO2e emissions of electricity fell from 744 g/kWh in 1990 to 576 in 2012, a reduction of 22.5%. This is even more remarkable considering that nuclear energy production in Germany fell by 35% in the same time period and had to be compensated for in part by renewable energy.
Is German electricity expensive? Germany adds taxes for end users, but industrial wholesale rates for electricity are actually significantly LOWER than the European average, and the gap is widening (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=de&pcode=ten00114, http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-industry-power-prices-a-comparison/150/537/71319/)
Amory’s article (http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution) provides more details on how the success of Germany’s Energiewende is distorted in some media reports
So, we are taking a currency that’s only value is its inherent stability, and investing it in subsidized fairy tales ?
I’m sure that will end well.
Thanks Ed. Interesting numbers.
We recently bought a combination refrigerator/freezer. As advertised it keeps fresh food cold and frozen food frozen. If either compartment only worked 20% of the time we would return it and ask for our money back. It would get returned if it worked 45% of the time or even a whopping 90% of the time. In other words, it is expected to work as advertised.
Wind and solar should be evaluated on what they actually do and not an unachieavable metric. In contrast, consider a public building, say, city hall. This building is used about 8 hours each day for about 250 days each year. This is a low usage factor but it is also the expected usage factor. No problem. Society still builds city halls. Perspective is important. I can deal with city hall being open only part of the time. I can’t operate a home with electric power on only 8 hours per day 250 each year.
Hydroelectric is renewable. It is not hopeless. It powered my childhood.
Though humanity’s last hope is thorium.
I think humanity’s last hope is Lithium.
We need a massive Thorium Project — NOW!
Why?
We can already produce vast amounts of clean energy now (if the eco-statists would get out of the way)
If you design a reactor to use thorium rods, they would, of course, be more efficient. But there’s (engineering wise anyway) that would prevent us from using such rods in our existing reactors. Essentially, the fuel supply would be endless. We discuss periodically in my profession, but it’s going to take some political will to get it going again.
The “smart grid” can also help. If you need to wash clothes, you might not need it immediately, and if the grid could signal even “cheap/excess” or “expensive” power, it could do the cycle when it was signaled the wind was blowing or the sun was out. For A/C, it tends to be needed when the sun is shining. (Conversely, heat pumps are a problem when it is 0F or below).
@ur momisugly tz
You have obviously never had a dishwasher short out and very nearly catch on fire. You have obviously never had the lint vent from your clothes dryer catch on fire. Neither occurrence in my household was the potential disaster it could have been because I was up, awake, and monitoring the situation. I shudder to think what may have happened if I had been asleep during the low power usage cycle and the dishwasher and/or the dryer cycled on.
I wash dishes by hand so I don’t have to worry about that.
I routinely disassemble as much of my gas dryer as I can and thoroughly vacuum/blow out all of the lint I can at least once a year.
Overnight fires from my dryer are the least of my concerns.
I clean out my clothes dryer vent system at least yearly. Doesn’t solve all the potential problems. In fairness I didn’t have a fire. It was smoldering and could easily have developed into a fire.
Only a socialist could love the “smart grid.” I want my A/C to work right when everyone does and I will wash clothes on my timetable, not yours.
We can produce all the electric power we need at reasonable prices. Modern nuclear power for example. We just need the watermelons (green outside, but red in the core) to get out of the way.
I belive a smart grid would be tremendously beneficial to all electrical consumers………………………
Provided all of the consumers had all of the electricity they needed, when they need it.
If the smart grid’s primary use is to manage Soviet style electricity shortages, then it would be a beast of evil !!
You don’t have to worry about the smart grid: utility companies reward users for not using expensive peak electricity through their rate structure (in 32 states). Those who wish to reduce their electricity costs, can schedule tasks that are not time-dependent. The market place decides how much power costs during peaks, and if you insist on using power at those times, you simply pay the market price.
We can produce all the electric power we need at reasonable prices. …if you do not include the price we payed in Europe with Tjernobyll and whats coming from Fukusima……..About “modern nuclear power : nearly ALL the reactors in Europa are 12 years overdue for replacement, and are cracking up….go tell people in Japan who are being intoxicated..that their price for energy was reasonable…
Tell that to someone at home on a life support system. The single largest savior of lives has been A/C. You would deny people the ability to keep cool in hot summers? With more heat deaths? You people live in a fantasy world. How many people have to die because of lack of power before you abandon this nonsense?
None. Germany, with one of the highest percentages of renewable electricity, is also one of the most reliable (see above).
This post raises a few points:
1. The German offshore power stations must be kept rotating when there is no wind. I believe it has to do with preventing salt accumulation. They use diesel fuel to do this. Some deduction from the energy output would adjust for the cost of the diesel fuel and cost of equipment.
2. In this article, MW (megawatts) are correctly used as the units of capacity. But it seems to me that the proper units for output should be MWh (megawatt hours). The reason is that a MW is a measure of power while MWh is a measure of energy.
Example: Household appliances are rated in Watts (power) but electricity is charged by KWh (kilowatt hours). If my water heater is rated at 1 kilowatt and I run it 10 hours per day for 30 days, it will use 300 kilowatt hours. If I pay 12 cents per KWh I will pay $36.00 per month for heating the water. I pay for units of energy used.. Conclusion: To compare fossil fuel power stations with wind and solar installations we should compare energy output by each type of station in MWh..
It might be worth considering also what is the EFFECTIVE MWh output available to consumer. This would allow us to estimate the energy saved by solar and wind. Standby power from fossil fuel plants is needed for both solar and wind. The energy used by these standby plants is not saved and should therefore be deducted from the output from solar and wind plants to get the effective energy generated. Excess energy (MWh) dumped by wind and solar when surplus to demand should also be deducted. None of these adjustments can be performed using MW but only by using MWh.
3. Nameplate capacity is interesting mainly because for each type of installation the number of installed MW will give us a rough measure of how much it cost to build the installation per MW. In that case we would have to consider onshore and offshore wind plants as different types of installation. But capacity (power) is not a good measure of energy output. The question we are interested in is: What is the total energy output in MWh per MW installed.
4. A point not considered here is the cost of transmission of power to centers of populations and industry. (Transmission and distribution are different. Transmission is by high tension lines usually over long distances. Distribution is lower voltage for short distances.) In comparison to the price of electricity the cost of transmission is not negligible, perhaps 5% to 20%.
Fossil fuel plants can be located nearer consumers, while solar, wind and hydro installations must be located near where nature provides the solar, wind and hydro and bear the cost of transmission. The energy used in transmission should be deducted from energy generated to get effective MWh available to consumers.
5. A cost-benefit analysis of power generation and transmission, even for one country, would be a complex exercise, probably beyond the capacity of any one person and not trivial for a team. Perhaps this is why it has been possible to gull the public into believing that solar and wind have any future at all in a modern industrial nation.
Solar and wind power have made a few people very rich at the cost of higher electricity bills for the many. And so renewable energy has been the greatest scam on Earth and will continue to be so until replaced by carbon taxes as an even bigger scam.
“The German offshore power stations must be kept rotating when there is no wind.”
The windmills are kept turning for two (2) reasons.
1, To keep the drive shafts from bending
2. To avoid flat spots on the bearings.
Both of which will destroy the windmill.
Climate Change is the result of carbon gas emissions which are caused by Industrialization which is driven by Population growth. The current world population is 7 billion individuals, the last billion boarded between 1999 and 2011. By 2023 another billion will be added or a 33% population increase since 1999. Graph it out yourself, explosive population growth is the main driver behind Climate Change. The magnitude of the problem is much greater than closing down a few Industries or building Renewable Energy facilities and evident when all the variables are considered
So, Robert H Emery, have you sterilized yourself yet?
Have you sterilized your kids, your spouse, your parents, your brother and sisters?
Are you living “off-the-grid” using a dung-burning stove quenching your thirst once daily from a slimy pond of dung-steeped water on the African plain with only stone-tipped spears on naturally-fallen wood limbs to protect yourself from the predators and your fellow starving humans?
How many people have you killed today? How many people do you believe should needlessly die in poverty, squalor, hunger, thirst and the cold to make you feel better about the solutions and better lives brought forth by harnessing energy properly and usefully, instead of wasting it on carbon capture schemes, get-rich-quick false “greed energy” politically-corrupt renewable energy schemes ?
How much physical and emotional harm have you caused since the CAGW scams became politically popular?
One does wonder if people eating monkeys and bats and ground rodents with no medical care or hygiene will sooner or later develop some mutating virus that will
avenge them on the rich populated cities who deprive them of the natural resources that would relieve their poverty.
Mr. Emery, I have to give you credit. Usually greens hid behind euphemisms. You don’t hide. You come right out and state you want people to die. And you had the courage to do the dirty deed under (presumably) your real name. Hat off to you (self snip).
One effective means of controlling poulation would be to euthanize or sterilize all persons 35 and under. This would greatly reduce birth rates.
Environmentalists must begin to speak clearly and frankly about poulation reduction.
Getting people out of poverty also appears to help reduce the birth rate.
Think about what you just said Billy. You propose the end of civilization.
Carbon gas emissions, really?
“Climate Change is the result of carbon gas emissions which are caused by Industrialization which is driven by Population growth. ”
=======================
Sir, you start off wrong and the rest is no better. The Null hypothesis is CC is caused by natural factors, as CC has happened for billions of years. That man affects climate is not in dispute. The assertion that the affect is dangerous, or catastrophic, is , according to all the observable evidence, simply not true. In fact the observable evidence for the benefit of CO2 on the biosphere is overwhelming. Currently worldwide food production is up about 15 percent over what it would be , due simply and solely to going from a 280 ppm CO2 world to a 400 ppm world. And that 15% increase came at a cost of zero additional water. (Agricultural production has increased far more then that, but here we are only considering the benefits of CO2.)
This world can easily support several billion more people, if ignorant progressive “rule the world” mini Blackbeard’s would get out of the way. Eventually population growth is a problem, but now the problem is elitist progressives who plead good intentions to their misdeeds; to quote Daniel Webster…“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
The fastest way to reduce population growth is to supply a society with the modern benefits of inexpensive abundant energy. The demographic projections of many nations will, and some already are, begin to decline. Commonsense and a dose of humility and personal and national liberty is all that is required.
Except of course that the planet has been as warm, if not warmer, in the past such as the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. During the MWP the Vikings settled and farmed on Greenland – I don’t see much of that going on right now so therefore it was warmer then than it is now. The island itself was named because it was green and verdant – very white and icy at the moment. And carbon doesn’t exist as a gas.
Robert H Emery:
No, it is not. Your serve.
I think it is, partly. But with no feedbacks, there isn’t a lot.
Well, Robert, you can do two things:
a) Find out the population density of say Kazakhstan (and then reconsider whether there is not enough space for people)
b) go to http://www.gapminder.org and look at how fertility develops in dependence of prosperity.
This might give you a clue. Any Hans Rosling lecture on youtube will do as well.
So climate change never happened in the 4.5 billion years before humans? Please… Your myth has been thoroughly debunked.
There are more than 9,200 scientific papers supporting the reality of human-made global warming, summarized and referenced here: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1. Peer-reviewed scientific papers saying otherwise are virtually absent and primarily limited to non-climate scientist authors and marginal journals (e.g. Cook, John, et al. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2): 1-7.)
Climate change denial is a billion dollar industry supported by fossil fuel money (Brulle, Robert J. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change December 2013.)
Climate denial is pretty much restricted to fossil-fuel funded and ideologically oriented web sites and books. Can you cite a recent climate science paper in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal (e.g. Nature, Science) that provides support for the notion that climate change is not happening or that humans are not the main cause?
I’d encourage you to spend an hour or two in your closest university’s library reviewing recent journal articles to get an accurate understanding of the current state of climate science.
[Reply: It violates site policy to label others as ‘deniers’, or any similar term. ~ mod.]
@godostoyke:
First off, what is “climate change denial”?
Michael Mann tried to deny that the temperature never changed until the Industrial Revolution. He dishonestly erased the MWP and the LIA. Only Mann’s lemmings deny that the climate never changed. But skeptics know that the climate constantly changes; it always has, and it always will. Naturally.
Next, your dishonest implication that this website is supported by “fossil fuel money”, or that it supports the fossil fuel industry, is wrong. Different commentators may have their views, but that is only an indication that WUWT does not censor — like most alarmist blogs do. Maybe you didn’t understand that, because it is you who is ‘ideological’. Now that you have been informed of the facts, any further comments like that will be labeled as what they are: lies.
Next, your cherry-picked papers mean nothing. They are the usual Appeal to Authority fallacy. No doubt you believe Cooks’ total fabrication about the so-called “97%” ‘consensus’.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence showing that human activity causes any rise in global temperature. If you believe otherwise, then post your evidence showing the specific fraction of a degree rise in global temperature directly attributable to human emitted CO2 [what scientific illiterates call “carbon”]. Document your ‘evidence’. Show us how much of the 0.7ºC global warming is cause by humans. If you can do that, you will be the first.
Finally, it is clear that you have no real understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. Evidence is not your pal reviewed papers. It is not the GIGO output of always-inaccurate climate models, which cannot accurately predict the climate. EVIDENCE is raw data [or adjusted data, where every step of the adjustment is published along with the raw data]; and it is verifiable empirical observations.
You simply cannot show that humans are the cause of global warming, via the Scientific Method. If you had any understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would see that human-caused global warming is nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion.
Stick around here for six months or a year, and you will probably wise up. Right now, your mind is colonized by pseudo-scientific nonsense. You need to get over that impediment.
godostoyke your use of the term “Climate change denial” shows right there it’s a religion. NO ONE DENIES the climate changes. AGW is a THEORY, not fact, hence it cannot be denied, just agreed to or disagreed to. So right off you have left the realm of science.
Second, not one paper has empirically linked CO2 to any change in the climate. And I challenge you to post such if one exist.
Third there is NOTHING happening the climate system today which has never happened before. Not even rates. Every one of the predictions of the AGW High Priests have failed to materialize.
As I said, it has been thoroughly debunked. Just a few of your True Believers left.
dbstealey, “climate change denial” is the denial of anthropogenic climate change, in the face of massive scientific evidence to the contrary (not unlike the denial that the holocaust ever happened by some in the face of massive evidence to the contrary)
dbstealey, the best estimates of the rate of warming from human emissions (e.g. fossil fuel burning) are 1.68 W/m2 for CO2, 0.97 W/m2 for methane. Human aerosols COOL the planet by about 0.8 W/m2 if they are in the atmosphere, but WARM the planet by about 0.6W/m2 if e.g. black carbon lands on snow. Net anthropogenic effect of all factors is 2.29 W/m2 relative to the year 1750 (uncertainties of 1.13 to 3.33 W/m2).
Source Figure SPM.5, IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Available from the IPCC website http://www.ipcc.ch and the IPCC WGI AR5 website http://www.climatechange2013.org
dbstealey, please provide ONE recent peer-reviewed climate science paper in a major scientific journal regularly publishing on this subject (e.g. Science, Nature) that provides evidence that puts into doubt anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have provided you with a link to over 9,200 scientific papers that support the theory of AGW. And, no, they don’t have to be cherry-picked because 97-100% of climate science papers support AGW (the 97% figure is being generous to climate deniers, as they include papers from non-climate scientists publishing in non-natural science journals, as I have checked for myself, and as you could as well, if you so chose.
@dbstealey
@jrwakefield
None of the leading climate scientists I know would deny that climate change has happened in the past, many times. Can you please provide a link to a peer-reviewed science article in a respected natural science journal that makes this claim? Thanks
Gee godostoyke …
You have repeatedly only claimed ‘scientific consensus” from so-called “climate scientists” paid by the government to generate so-called “climate science” papers for fellow government-paid so-called “climate scientists” to review and publish inside government-paid journals so the government can generate 1.3 trillion dollars a year in additional taxes.
So far, your so-called “climate scientists” have generated ZERO correct predictions about their claimed field over a period of 17 years. Further, the ONLY period they do make correct predictions for over any period of a decade or longer is that ONE interval from 1975 – 1996 when both CO2 and global average temperatures both rose at the same time.
Before that 21 year interval, CO2 was steady, and temperatures rose, remained steady, and declined.
Before that 21 year interval, CO2 rose, and global average temperatures rose, remained steady, and declined.
Now, just what IS this supposed “evidence” that your so-called “scientists’ do have that supports their paychecks, their laboratories, their programmers, their travel, their vacations, their journals, and their retirement funds?
RACookPE1978,
Correct as usual. I just made the same point about the failure of the AGW conjecture to predict anything accurately.
I would suggest posting without using these nesting replies, though. Very few readers will see your comments. Instead, quote what you are replying to, and post at the bottom of the thread. [You will also see my recent reply there.]
@ur momisugly dbstealey
You make many unsubstantiated claims, but I notice that unlike me, you still have not supplied a single scientific reference to back up your claims, as I requested. That in itself speaks volumes.
To get the ball rolling, here are a few more or less random references cited by IPCC AR5 referenced earlier:
Granier, C., et al., 2011: Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period. Clim. Change, 109, 163–190.
Hohne, N., et al., 2011: Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty. Clim. Change, 106, 359–391.
Hoyle, C., et al., 2011: A review of the anthropogenic influence on biogenic secondary organic aerosol. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 321–343.
Ravishankara, A. R., J. S. Daniel, and R. W. Portmann, 2009: Nitrous oxide (N2O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science, 326, 123–125.
Philipona, R., K. Behrens, and C. Ruckstuhl, 2009: How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 36, L02806.
@dbstealey: “You simply cannot show that humans are the cause of global warming, via the Scientific Method.”
dbstealey, this statement does not make any sense. Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason is exactly what the scientific method is for.
@RACookPE1978 said “You have repeatedly only claimed ‘scientific consensus” from so-called “climate scientists” paid by the government to generate so-called “climate science” papers for fellow government-paid so-called “climate scientists” to review and publish inside government-paid journals so the government can generate 1.3 trillion dollars a year in additional taxes.”
If scientists were falsifying data to obtain more funding from government, you would expect them to write papers DISPROVING anthropogenic climate change when the government is anti-climate protection (e.g. Abbott, Harper, Bush 2.0). However, this is not the case.
godostoyke August 31, 2014 at 11:21 pm
“Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason is exactly what the scientific method is for.”
FALSE
“Describing and explaining physical phenomena observed in and around our world using evidence and reason” has nothing to do with science. It has been done, and is still done, with utterly unscientific methods. Ptolemaic epicycles for example : very smart, full of reason, pretty well agreeing with evidence, very effective, but … unscientific.
On the other hand scientific method is for DISPROVING theories, confronting his predictions with observations of facts and results of experiments . A real scientist tries hard to prove he is wrong, being equally happy to be keep his theory if he fails or to have to invent a new one if he succeed. Have you ever seen a CAGW proponent trying to prove himself wrong ? no, they don’t. They make no science at all.
@paqyfelyc: “A real scientist tries hard to prove he is wrong, being equally happy to be keep his theory if he fails or to have to invent a new one if he succeed.” No disagreement here. However, you are wrong if you believe that scientific research cannot be used to SUPPORT a hypothesis or theory. Adding support for a hypothesis or taking away support for a hypothesis are equally valid results of scientific research based on evidence.
“Adding support for a hypothesis or taking away support for a hypothesis are equally valid results of scientific research based on evidence.”
nonsense.
to add support to an hypothesis by the scientific method, you must TRY to take away support to a hypothesis.
Either not succeeding — despite trying hard — to falsify the hypothesis, or succeeding to falsify alternates.
Neither is never done in so called “climate science” (for instance, have you ever read a paper telling “it cannot be clouds, because …” ? )
godostoyke:
Except CO2 is NOT the generator of climate change, so climb back under your rock with your fascist propaganda.
@sharpshooter, the link between CO2 and climate change is a matter of science record, and quite the opposite of “fascist propaganda”. Do you even know what fascist propaganda is? You don’t seem to be using it correctly in this context. Incidentally, wiithout water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere (two potent greenhouse gases) humans wouldn’t even exist, as earth would be a frozen ball in space. The natural greenhouse effect has saved our butt. However, radiative forcing from human-released greenhouse gases (and some particulates) is adding an estimated 2.29 W/m2 to earth’s temperature (year 2011 compared to 1750; http://www.ipcc.ch WGI AR5), and that is a concern.
godostoyke,
Sharpshooter is correct: there is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that human emitted CO2 causes “climate change”. That is nothing but a baseless assertion, and no matter how many pal-reviewed papers you cite, you have still not posted any evidence whatever to support your belief system.
I have said this before, but you keep avoiding it: there is no verified measurement quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming that purportedly results from the rise in anthropogenic CO2. No measurements whatever. Your belief is scientifically baseless.
I would ask you to post any such evidence that you believe you may have. But I’ve asked before, and you ignore it. That is because there is no such evidence. There are no such measurements quantifying the specific rise in temperature from human-emitted CO2. That is akin to a religious belief, and that is why you are unable to post any measurements. Without any verifiable measurements, there is no science, because science is nothing without measurements. You have no measurements. All you have is your Belief.
If you had any understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would understand that human-caused global warming is nothing more than a baseless conjecture. That conjecture has colonized your mind, and your cherry-picking of pal-reviewed papers is nothing but confirmation bias. It is an attempt to support what you have already concluded.
Nothing I say will cause you to think. Your mind is made up, and closed tight. But for any other readers, think about this: godostoyke cannot produce any measurements showing the fraction of a degree of warming that is supposedly caused by human CO2. There are no such measurements. If there were the whole debate would be settled. As we see, it is far from settled.
dbstealey September 1, 2014 at 2:32 am
+1
And Robert, please show us the proof behind your OPINION that population increase causes global warming. Have we had a population decrease for the last 18 years? (It would follow from your “reasoning”)
“the last billion boarded between 1999 and 2011”
Atmospheric CO2 rose 35 PPM during that period, = 9.5% increase.
World industrial production rose 64% during that period.
Yet global temps remained steady or declined during and after the addition of that billion.
Increasing population has NOT driven increased world temps.
Increasing industrialization has NOT driven increased world temps.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 has NOT driven increased world temps.
If you did not mean climate warming when you stated “climate change”, please specify which climate parameter you meant. I doubt you can find a climate parameter which has “suffered”.
SR
@Steve Reddish: GLOBAL temperature continues to rise, with about 60x more heat gain in the oceans than in the atmosphere. ATMOSPHERIC temperatures have been rising more slowly in the last 10 years or so (though with a record high in 2010), and within expected variability due to the interplay of harder to predict El Nino and La Nina cycles. (E.g. Church, J.A. et al. 2011. Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Resarch Letters 38: 1-8.)
godo:
That is nothing but coincidence. A spurious correlation, which has now broken down. CO2 continues to rise, but temperature has stopped rising.
The fact is that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature, not vice-versa. I have repeatedly posted empirical evidence showing that is true.
So who are you going to believe? Planet Earth? Or Algore and the IPCC?
They can’t both be right, you know.
Rational people believe what the real world is telling us, and if there is a conflict between empirical evidence and the UN/IPCC, then unbiased folks have no problem coming to the correct conclusion.
The planet does not lie — unlike the UN/IPCC.
godostoyke August 31, 2014 at 10:41 pm:
“@Steve Reddish: GLOBAL temperature continues to rise, with about 60x more heat gain in the oceans than in the atmosphere.”
LOL!
Too bad for Church & al. , simple physics says that, to gain heat, you must receive more energy or send back less energy. Which didn’t happened, according to ERBE and CERES satellites data, while CO2 rose.
Funny, isn’t it ?
This argument has been around for a long time. The USA has 2.3 billion acres, If divided into 1/4 acre plots the USA alone could situate over 9 billion. If you want to kill off every poor person because they might want what you have, why don’t you just come out and say so. Green goofballs have been responsible for far more deaths as, other posters have said,than all the CO2 ever created by man. I know Gaia is your god but not mine.
You forgot to remove the nearly billion acres under till to feed 300 million. Add another 300-500 million, and all the usable land will be taken for food production. Another 500 million would mean draining swamps, opening up wilderness and parks, and invading Canada because we need the Lebensraum. Not pretty.
Then there’s the problem with sewage and drinking water.
So why are you still alive and posting?
The renewable energy investment in the USA nominally now contributes about 3.8% of electricity generation.
That’s not true. In the first 5 months of 2013, wind and solar were 4.1% of electrical generation. In the first 5 months of 2014, they were 5%. If you’re going to quote statistics, then get them right.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf
I find it curious you only included only the first five months of 2013. Do you have the % for the entire year? That being said, 5% just isn’t that much more significant than 3.8%. You’re still circumsizing a gnat.
Well, since all I hear are crickets I must assume you know that the peak months for electrical consumption starts in June. Solar and wind power produces a far smaller percent of the total electrical power produced during the next several months, bringing the percent contribution for the year down significantly from the first five months. What you did was cherry-pick the months, a tactic that you will not succeed with on this site.
Problem with wind http://youtu.be/gJtv7gkuh1s
Interesting article.
It should be noted that UK solar production figures are total fiction. There is no monitoring at all of production from domestic installations. It is a more or less arbitrary _assumed_ production. There is not metering.
Anyone installing PV in the UK ( possibly excepting Cornwall ) is kidding themselves. There is a decent summer about once every 20 years. You’d really need to believe in a change in climate coming along.
Apart from pandering to the green lobby the real reason UK governments give grants and preferential feed-in tariffs for PV is to provide the user with a certified revenue. A revenue opens the possibility of a loan and loans allows the banks to create money ( “wealth” ) that does not exist and balance their books.
Most of this is about saving the banks not saving the planet.
The notable difference between german and US solar capacity factor is quite striking. I’m guessing that the large scale installations in US are a lot more productive than often poorly placed roof-top installations in Germany.
Solar catches well 2h either side of high noon and scapes the equivalent of another two hours from the bits in either side. A 24/365 capacity factor or around 25% is pretty good.
I would be a little suspicious of what the data actually are ( especially is you use WP as your source !! ).
I suspect that there are also a lot of off-grid users in Germany and installation data maybe from sales of panels whereas production will be only from feed-in tariff data.
One thing that is interesting is the wobble in capacity factor for wind. I’m guessing that this is in fact climate data. It appears the the US production has a clear circa 2y cycle. Could this be a reflection of atmospheric circulation being affected by the quasi- biennial oscillation ( QBO ) ?
Would be interesting to follow up on that.
No, higher capacity factor in USA is due to more sun hours per year. USA has up to 2500 in Claifornia; Germany maxes out at 1000 near Freiburg, and 800 in the North.
What you mean is efficiency, that’s 18% for silicon, 9% or so for thin film.
“I suspect that there are also a lot of off-grid users in Germany ”
Not at all. Germany is a metroplex and has grid everywhere.
An Australian review commissioned by the Federal Government has found that Renewable Energy Target, RET, of 20% of energy by 2020, has failed as a scheme.
Overall electrical production is now commonly in surplus of needs and there is no point subsidising the glut even further. The target looks like it will be met with no further subsidies paid.
The Government has yet to make a decision.
……………………
Shortly, there will be another study released, related to a White Paper on electricity costs. It has a different review panel. Its recommendations might overlap those of the RET review and they might be different. We shall see, as we shall see which way the Government responds.
Many of us are hoping for common sense to prevail over ideology and the pleading of special interest groups.
Geoff: Whenever I hear of ‘targets’ that are alliterative (20% by 2020; 50% by 2050 etc) I know that the target is political, not environmental. Of course, when we’re (UK) ruled by PR guys it’s SOP for them.
As stated by other commentors this analysis is incomplete without including the Investment & Running Costs of the energy production.
The latest study on German Solar & Wind shows a very poor rate of return even though they are given priority over FF & Nuclear. If it was the other way around and wind & solar were not heavily subsidized they would not invest another euro in either solar or wind.
That is why they are heavily investing in Dirty Lignite power stations now, some of them are realists.
“In the UK the nominal contribution from wind-power is now equivalent to about 3 normal power stations, (1GW) and only about ¼ of a normal power station is provided by solar power. In 2013 the solar output capacity reached 6.8% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it was rather higher at 7.6%.
In 2013 the wind-power capacity reached the satisfactory output capacity factor of 28.5% of installed nameplate capacity but the averaged over the whole data set it only amounted to 22.5%.”
As the UK closes it’s coal fired generating capacity those “green” percentages will look better and better.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Close all the coal, gas and nuclear capacity and we will have 100% green power generation.
But there will not be enough to go round.
Here you can watch daily power production in Germany.
Conventional gray, wind green and solar yellow.
Flash needed !
http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/
UK.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nordic countries
Further down on this page is a table showing the current types of production and net exchange: negative value = sell, positive value = buy.
http://www.svk.se/Start/English/Operations-and-market/Nordic-System-Map/
Here you can watch daily renewable production in Ontario Canada.
http://www.ieso.ca/
Note the small fraction of the total supply from wind, and solar is so minuscule it’s listed in the small “Other” category.
The amazing part of that chart is the large % of nuclear in the mix. I knew about the hydro power (very famous here south of the border), but having nuclear as nearly 3/4 of the power — that’s outstanding! It probably helps your balance of payments to be able to sell the excess fossil fuel to those less advanced countries (like the US). Too bad our Obstructor in Chief is both blocking the XLP and not interested in Nuclear.
For those who ask about cost:
Subsidy cost has grown exponentially, pretty stable with 20 to 25% a year, and stands now at 24 billion EUR a year. Population is 80 million, so it’s about 300 EUR cost per person per year.
These 300 EUR are paid in three ways: one third as a surcharge on consumed kWh from the grid, I think that’s 6.25 cents a kWh currently; one third is paid via taxes (because the public apparatur will have to pay the surcharge as well for the elec it consumes, and that’s a third of total elec consumed), one third is paid via higher consumer good prices (commercial sector consumes remaining third of elec and has to pay the surcharge as well)
So the huge cost is nicely distributed and hidden and our journalists can hide it very well (as the main task of a journalist in the West in 2014 is to hide things.)
Subsidy pays the agreed tariff to the Solar / Wind elec producer. This tariff is fixed for 20 years when the installation goes online. Year after year the tariff for new installations is lowered, and some other conditions come into it, for instance a rooftop solar gets 14 cent a kWh, a solar plantation in the forest gets 7 cents. If its built on old chemically polluted Russian weapons ranges in ex DDR you get a cent or two more. Google has some huge PV fields there. You never see them if you don’t fly as they are in the core of forested areas.
West Germany of course is so densely populated that it’s impossible to hide anything but in the ex DDR there are some rather empty spots so they’ve been covered with PV – small problem is that there are no big consumers there. Another madness; building the stuff where it’s not needed, but that is allowed and gets subsidized.
Many Bundestag MP’s have shares in wind and solar operators and have a pcuniary interest in increasing the redistribution scheme. Methamphetamine doesn’t pay for itself. I’m looking at you, SPD.
Good info. I discussed the subsidies with the solar roof salesman at the last Mayfest in Strasburg. After many denials he finally admitted that net metering was a subsidy. It helps that solar almost peaks when A/C peaks in summer. But otherwise we are paying full retail for power that is unreliable and unneeded. I also attended the power company annual meeting and following conference call. It is simply amazing how clueless people are about the facts of power production and consumption, it is a sad tribute to our education system and media.
@DirkH The subsidies for renewables are paltry compared to the $1.9 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1393.htm). And that doesn’t even count the 1 million deaths from coal fired power plants, acidification of oceans or climate change.
Let’s cut out ALL energy subsidies. What would happen?
Answer: solar and wind power would wither on the vine. Solar would remain as a tiny niche provider in areas far from other electricity sources, but it would not have even one percent of its current market share. Wind would be completely eliminated by market forces: no one will pay 10X more for unreliable windmill power. No one, not even eco-Malthusian Green hypocrites.
Alternative energy only exists because of massive taxpayer subsidies. But coal and natgas would still be widely used. They don’t need any subsidies, while subsidies are necessary for solar and windmills to even exist.
I trust that makes the subsidy argument clear.
Finally, the stupid “acidification” argument is complete nonsense. There is no scientific evidence to support it. And the ‘million deaths’ from coal is another outright Green lie, based on statistical mumbo-jumbo and fabricated numbers.
And of course, the “climate change” canard: scientific skeptics are the ones who have always said that climate constantly changes. But Michael Mann and his lemmings claim that there was no climate change until the Industrial Revolution [the long flat handle of Mann’s hokey schtick].
If it were not for their constant lies and misrepresentation, the alarmist crowd would not have anything to argue with.
The world may be able to support a few billion more people; ironically, it wouldn’t need to, if “developing” nations were allowed to develop. As people become more prosperous, the birth rate falls off. You can try draconian practices, as China did, forcing poor people to restrict family size more or less violently, or you can raise their standard of living, and with mere access (i.e., no need for force) to birth control, they’ll have smaller families all on their own.
For that matter, building more sensible housing would reduce the need for a lot of power. Build a tin-can home in the desert, and you’re going to need a ton more power to cool it in the summer and warm it in the winter, than if you built a straight-up adobe home. Burying old tires in the walls reduces landfill problems as it reduces power demands; ferrocement walls with old used cans & bottles buried within, likewise. Frees up power for other things, yah? “Green” doesn’t have to mean “back to medieval technology”.
But if you want to generate ever more power, here is an interesting argument, a different take on “global warming”:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Thermodynamics wins every time.
I did a detailed analysis of wind output in Ontario Canada. I used hourly output data over a 5 year period to get a much finer detail of what is actually happening. It doesnt matter what the output of a power source is over the course of a year. Power output must be viewed in real time, that is, what it can do for us right now. That means looking at each smallest increment possible. And that is on an hour by hour basis.
When you do that you find that the situation for wind power, and solar as well, is even worse. For example in the summer months wind output in Ontario is a mere 7% of nameplate. 40% of the time they produce nothing at all (that’s anything under 5% nameplate).
See the analysis here: http://OntarioWindPerformance.wordpress.com.
Renewable lack of dispatchability will quite likely lead to rolling brown outs/blackouts in the UK this winter. Reason is unplanned base load outages (two nucs, one coal) have left essentially no spare grid capacity, while the crazy wind rules have prevented normal investment in standby gas peakers. Now too late to put that in place (two year lead time).
And in California 2015 summer. Reason there is threefold. Lack of suffient transmission interconnect, especially north/south. Drought impact on hydro. And the growing proportion of grid renewable mandated by the state, most concentrated in the southern half. The timing estimate is from formal PGE and SoCal testimony 2/26/2013 to the CPUC.
If happens, will be extremely educational to climate obsessed UK and California politicians and citizens.
Blackouts will be needed to convince people of this folly, but before this occurs California is going to dictate when you can run AC, when you can heat etc. (more regulations to intentionally disregard in my case)
I bought and installed underground a very nice surplus military generator that I will use when needed, with the side benefit of releasing additional CO2 to a hungry biosphere .
the green propagandists at places like Think Progress have their followers convinced that solar actually improves the reliability of the grid (i.e. buffers out voltage spikes). Absolute mind-bending B.S. and so people believe it.
Even if the storage problems & reliability could be mitigated, think of the sheer square area required to bring wind/solar up to any significant percentage of energy use. Millions upon tens of millions of hectares. Think of all the habitat destroyed; the aesthetic pollution of wilderness skylines and ocean views with these ugly pylons & panels. The countless shredded/fried birds & bats.
It’s an absolute deal-breaker for me. There’s no compelling reason to inflict these monstrosities on ourselves.