‘clean’ Electricity – the false messiah PART 1
Today’s environmental movement is all hyped on the magic bullet of ‘clean’ electricity – the cure all to end pollution, smog, greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. We will all breath better – both literally and figuratively – once electricity rules.
‘clean’ electricity means wind or solar generation and hydro power where easily feasible (mostly from fast flowing rivers with large drops – think Niagara Falls – and modest dams – no flooding huge valleys and diverting rivers). And, of course, that ultimate devil, the automobile, must be reinvented in electric form.
‘clean’ power
Wind turbines and solar power, unfortunately, are not as great as some first thought. As the creator of the Gaia theory, green pioneer James Lovelock acknowledged in various writings and speeches as far back as 2005 wind and solar power are not viable or unrealistic options.
Both are weather dependent and never 24 hours a day – no wind, no sunlight, no electricity. And as Lovelock stresses, they are both too expensive to build and operate en masse without huge government subsidies and will never create enough electricity to pay their way.
(See Globe and Mail, March 10, 2005, A23 for excerpts from a videotaped speech, and June 25, 2005, F2 article)
Moreover, recent events add to the problem list. Wind farms disrupt normal wind circulation patterns down wind altering rain cycles and air temperatures. They create so much noise that governments are banning their installation near densely inhabited areas and they have been found to upset and disrupt animal life on nearby farms. Think living by a train track.
Water based wind farms are also under attack as locals hate the lost scenic view. Bird lovers are coming around to hate these spinning blades as the number of chopped to death birds begins to be taken into account; the numbers already rising into the thousands.
As for solar power and the photoelectric cell, a technology going back to the mid-19th century and explained by Albert Einstein in 1905, time and weather are even more problematic. No nights, please, no cloudy days, no rain storms, no snow on top. In Canada and most of the United States, item 2, 3 and 4 make solar power of very limited use. For example, surprise, Hawaii is cloudy 2 of every 3 days and the same for Alaska. Only desert areas such as New Mexico and Arizona are sunny most days, at 75% or so of the time. (See http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westcomp.ovc.html for cloudy figures for western US states.)
For reasons such as the above, Lovelock began in 2005 to advocate the most hated and radical solution from a ‘green’ perspective– nuclear power. He argued nuclear was far more cost effective at generating electricity without the limitations noted above.
And, if you didn’t already know it, nuclear power has been the fastest growing ‘solution’ across Europe for decades, in spite of the fact Europe is the epicenter of the ‘green’ movement, a movement that long fought against repeating the Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island experiences.
According to the European Nuclear Society, as of June 30, 2010 there are already 195 – yes – 195 nuclear plants operating in Europe, with an additional 19 being built as I write. France is the leader with 58, Russia has 32, Britain 19 and Germany 17. See the chart breakdown for yourself at www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-europe.htm.
Personally, I don’t trust nuclear power because when it goes wrong – due to human error – the outcome could be catastrophic. Where I live in Ontario, our 2 nuclear stations regularly have ‘contaminated water leaks into their surroundings. And reactor cores and rods that should last 20 years break down regularly after 10 years – so with the ‘refurbishing’, they never, ever meet their always exaggerated ‘cost effectiveness’ calculations. (New plants always take up to an extra decade to build around here, at cost overruns in the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
As for the electric car
Electric cars are not a new idea.
In fact they go back to the 19th century as a technology using battery power. Did you know electric cars outsold all others in the USA in 1899 and 1900? Did you know that in 1897, a fleet of taxis built by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia. serviced New York City? (See inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm.)
So electric vehicles are nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes would say.
Q: Why did they fall to the wayside, like steam engined vehicles?
A: Highways and long distance travel, and speed were the killers
then – and now.
All the purely electric cars coming soon, such as the Nissan Leaf, are not only small, compact units, but have a maximum range of 100 miles under ideal circumstances -- no running air conditioning or the heater, no heavy snow to tire through. Then, they must be plugged in for 8 hours to recharge.
For people not living in cities, that limited range (let alone recharge time) is a major problem. For city dwellers who want to visit relatives in nearby towns and cities, a maximum 100 mile round trip range is a killer.
So, as a technology, electric cars are of limited utility and driving flexibility. Maybe a good choice as a 2nd car in town, but not as the only car.
At least not for those geographic monsters called Canada and the United States.
PS – Electric cars have 2 other weaknesses. The batteries have a 4 year life expectancy and cost thousands of dollars to replace. As well, so far, the batteries cannot be recycled.
And, finally, that electricity you plug in comes from some power plant that either uses coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear power to make your nice electric car run ‘emissions free’. So you really have only shifted the problem.
That’s NIMBY thinking.
Today’s environmental movement is all hyped on the magic bullet of ‘clean’ electricity – the cure all to end pollution, smog, greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. We will all breath better – both literally and figuratively – once electricity rules.
‘clean’ electricity means wind or solar generation and hydro power where easily feasible (mostly from fast flowing rivers with large drops – think Niagara Falls – and modest dams – no flooding huge valleys and diverting rivers). And, of course, that ultimate devil, the automobile, must be reinvented in electric form.
‘clean’ power
Wind turbines and solar power, unfortunately, are not as great as some first thought. As the creator of the Gaia theory, green pioneer James Lovelock acknowledged in various writings and speeches as far back as 2005 wind and solar power are not viable or unrealistic options.
Both are weather dependent and never 24 hours a day – no wind, no sunlight, no electricity. And as Lovelock stresses, they are both too expensive to build and operate en masse without huge government subsidies and will never create enough electricity to pay their way.
(See Globe and Mail, March 10, 2005, A23 for excerpts from a videotaped speech, and June 25, 2005, F2 article)
Moreover, recent events add to the problem list. Wind farms disrupt normal wind circulation patterns down wind altering rain cycles and air temperatures. They create so much noise that governments are banning their installation near densely inhabited areas and they have been found to upset and disrupt animal life on nearby farms. Think living by a train track.
Water based wind farms are also under attack as locals hate the lost scenic view. Bird lovers are coming around to hate these spinning blades as the number of chopped to death birds begins to be taken into account; the numbers already rising into the thousands.
As for solar power and the photoelectric cell, a technology going back to the mid-19th century and explained by Albert Einstein in 1905, time and weather are even more problematic. No nights, please, no cloudy days, no rain storms, no snow on top. In Canada and most of the United States, item 2, 3 and 4 make solar power of very limited use. For example, surprise, Hawaii is cloudy 2 of every 3 days and the same for Alaska. Only desert areas such as New Mexico and Arizona are sunny most days, at 75% or so of the time. (See http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westcomp.ovc.html for cloudy figures for western US states.)
For reasons such as the above, Lovelock began in 2005 to advocate the most hated and radical solution from a ‘green’ perspective– nuclear power. He argued nuclear was far more cost effective at generating electricity without the limitations noted above.
And, if you didn’t already know it, nuclear power has been the fastest growing ‘solution’ across Europe for decades, in spite of the fact Europe is the epicenter of the ‘green’ movement, a movement that long fought against repeating the Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island experiences.
According to the European Nuclear Society, as of June 30, 2010 there are already 195 – yes – 195 nuclear plants operating in Europe, with an additional 19 being built as I write. France is the leader with 58, Russia has 32, Britain 19 and Germany 17. See the chart breakdown for yourself at www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-europe.htm.
Personally, I don’t trust nuclear power because when it goes wrong – due to human error – the outcome could be catastrophic. Where I live in Ontario, our 2 nuclear stations regularly have ‘contaminated water leaks into their surroundings. And reactor cores and rods that should last 20 years break down regularly after 10 years – so with the ‘refurbishing’, they never, ever meet their always exaggerated ‘cost effectiveness’ calculations. (New plants always take up to an extra decade to build around here, at cost overruns in the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
As for the electric car
Electric cars are not a new idea.
In fact they go back to the 19th century as a technology using battery power. Did you know electric cars outsold all others in the USA in 1899 and 1900? Did you know that in 1897, a fleet of taxis built by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia. serviced New York City? (See inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm.)
So electric vehicles are nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes would say.
Q: Why did they fall to the wayside, like steam engined vehicles?
A: Highways and long distance travel, and speed were the killers
then – and now.
All the purely electric cars coming soon, such as the Nissan Leaf, are not only small, compact units, but have a maximum range of 100 miles under ideal circumstances -- no running air conditioning or the heater, no heavy snow to tire through. Then, they must be plugged in for 8 hours to recharge.
For people not living in cities, that limited range (let alone recharge time) is a major problem. For city dwellers who want to visit relatives in nearby towns and cities, a maximum 100 mile round trip range is a killer.
So, as a technology, electric cars are of limited utility and driving flexibility. Maybe a good choice as a 2nd car in town, but not as the only car.
At least not for those geographic monsters called Canada and the United States.
PS – Electric cars have 2 other weaknesses. The batteries have a 4 year life expectancy and cost thousands of dollars to replace. As well, so far, the batteries cannot be recycled.
And, finally, that electricity you plug in comes from some power plant that either uses coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear power to make your nice electric car run ‘emissions free’. So you really have only shifted the problem.
That’s NIMBY thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment