Over-embracing "Green" energy: the reality

Great Britain facing blackouts from 'Green' energy policies:

BLACKOUT BRITAIN FACES BIG TURN OFF

BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night.

A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.

Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse.

And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit consumers hard in the pocket.

“We are going to pay a very heavy price for the fact there has been a catalogue of neglect by the former Government which has focused on renewable energy sources,” Mr Birkett said.

“We need a mix of sources and this takes time. Renewables have the problem of being intermittent, particularly wind, and we need more back-up capacity. By having all our sources in one basket we are risking disruption. [...]

California made the same mistake in the 1990. They put too large a portion of their energy budget into "green" initiatives that just could not produce the required power. The result was rolling blackouts. They then had to scramble to start building more conventional power plants, which contributed to the states ever growing deficit problem. I posted about it here:

Green Energy, Blackouts, California and France

The mistake wasn't in encouraging and promoting "green" renewable energy sources. The mistake was in trying to rely on them as primary energy sources too soon, before they were ready to handle that capacity.

At best, green energy sources are supplemental. You can't make them prime before their time. They are evolving technologies.

Even people who don't believe the global warming hysteria, like green energy, because it reduces our dependency on foreign oil. But we can't ignore reality, and must acknowledge it's current limitations, even as we try to integrate it where we can, and work steadily to improve it and encourage it. To allow global warming hysteria to force premature adoption of green energy on a massive scale, will have disastrous results. You only have to look at California to see why.


Also see:

Cap and Trade: following California's example?

Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt... and moved to another state. But our whole nation now is moving to make the same mistake. If you read the whole article about Great Britain, the details, it's the same thing there. How many other countries are doing the same things? Is "everyone doing it" now?

     

Cap and Trade: following California's example?

Green nonsense
The 'cap and trade' bill would cost much and deliver little

[...] Waxman-Markey is, ostensibly, a "cap and trade" bill, which would impose substantial costs. One is the direct cost to business to purchase from the government "credits" to emit carbon dioxide, a cost which, presumably, would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Consumers would have to pay much more for electric power, in particular, since it's much cheaper to generate electricity from carbon-emitting fossil fuels than from wind and solar, the sources favored by the Obama administration.

The whole point of cap and trade -- which President Obama is careful not to make explicit -- is to make fossil fuels so expensive we will use less of them.

The president won't call this a tax. But his most prominent supporter in the business community, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, thinks it's one which will devastate an economy already in "shambles."

"It's a huge tax and there is no sense calling it anything else," Mr. Buffett said in a CNBC interview June 24.

We rely on fossil fuels for 85 percent of the energy we use to run our automobiles; to heat, light and cool our homes and offices; and to power our factories. The problem with wind and solar is not just that they are much more expensive than coal, oil or natural gas, but that they can't begin to replace the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels. [...]

California tried to "Go Green" when Gray Davis was Governor. I remember it well, because we lived in California then and owned a restaurant.

The state invested it's money in solar and wind projects, instead of building new power plants. The solar and wind projects were expensive, and failed to produce the needed energy. We ended up with high energy costs and "rolling blackouts". California had to scramble to build additional power plants, the ones they should have built in the first place, but now at great additional cost to the taxpayers. The rolling blackouts were so bad, that many businesses left the state, which also decreased the tax base.

Try running a business with "rolling blackouts". With skyrocketing energy costs, and soaring taxes too. We, like many business owners, couldn't do it. We had to start borrowing money just to stay open. That was the beginning of the end. We closed our restaurant, sold our assets and moved to Oregon.

Meanwhile in California, Gray Davis was removed from office in a recall election. But the state's economy was badly damaged, and has never fully recovered. Trying to "go green" using technology that can't as yet replace fossil fuels, was one of the big contributing factors that has put California into the severe financial distress it finds itself in today.

California has showed us where this path leads. And yet, now we, as a nation, are now going to follow same path, and expect different results?


Related Links:

Harsh Truth About California. And Our Nation?

Green Energy, Blackouts, California and France

Nuclear power now!