Renewables: Dumbest f***ing idea I have ever heard

Paraphrasing Steve Jobs — reasons not to pursue renewables:

1. Anti-environment. Increasing the concentration of generation allows larger areas of land to be retained in their natural state. In contrast, harvesting of land for biomass, wind or solar or energy damages more land. Advocates of renewable energy damn the natural environment with ugly, dangerous solar and wind structures.

2. Backwards. The progress of civilization is characterized by the utilization of denser, more intense energy sources. The inclination to dispersed energy sources is a form of neo-Luddism — opposition to modern technology.

2. Inadequate. It is difficult to generate the quantities of electricity as large as those produced by traditional generators. This means renewables assume we will reduce the amount of energy we use, either by voluntary or pricing mechanisms. Some Greens don’t even balk at a $500 per tonne tax, about x5 the wholesale cost of coal.

3. Expensive. We will pay more, and industries will be less competitive. Even at the most favorable low end of the cost estimate, the total cost of wind power was really around 6-7 cents per kWh approximately double the cost of new gas-fired electricity generation–and triple the cost of existing underused generation.

5. Up-front cost. The current capital cost of renewable energy technology is also far in excess of traditional fossil fuel generation.

6. Unreliable. Renewable energy relies on the weather for its source of power. When these resources are unavailable so is the energy, and so larger reliable generators are required for backup.

7. Climate-change dependent. The viability of renewables is contingent on the urgency of CO2 reduction action, and so on the immanent threat from climate change. Contrary to predictions of climate models, actual temperatures appear to be stabilizing, and extreme events like hurricanes decreasing.

8. Taxation. JoNova maps the Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: how tax dollars are converted into threatening messages by well-funded scientist/activists, rubber-stamped by a compliant media, and converted into massive tax-funded subsidies from a duped public.

Cap and trade is actually a giant scheme to tax and redistribute, for the benefit of political insiders.

9. Brain-damaged. Dangerous exposure to the opportunist rhetoric of eco-activists like the WWF, such as the following from the Australian Academy of Science:

Likewise, our approach to infrastructure development needs to be holistic and many-faceted. A report
commissioned by WWF Australia states:

… modelling finds that there are sufficient low emission energy resources, energy efficiency opportunities and emissions reduction opportunities in non-energy sectors to achieve reductions of 60 to 80%, and even emissions reductions of 90% or more if livestock emissions are reduced; and that there is sufficient time for the low emission technologies and services to grow at sustainable rates if development starts promptly.

10. Alternatives. Despite the risks, conventional fission nuclear is a viable alternative, and new, safe, conventional and low emission nuclear technologies are commercially available.

11. Vanity. Its hard to find a renewable energy article without the words “energy revolution” in them. What is it about renewables that attracts the Marxist narratives? Could the writers be attracted to an agenda that requires the individual-crushing social control, and big-government intervention inherent to Marxism?

12. Ineffective. The idea that renewables will reduce greenhouse emission is itself of dubious merit, as Peter Lang crunches the numbers and finds solar and wind power do little for greenhouse gas reduction.

And for those erudite academics who would take offense at my characterization of renewables as the dumbest f***ing idea I have ever heard, I give “Benjamin Franklin: Philadelphia, Serendipity, and a Summer Storm” by Dr. Bryen E. Lorenz. Quoting at length in response to the British Board of Ordinance effort in 1776 to protect its gunpowder from lightning strikes:

The question eventually became whether a pointed or blunt lightning rod end should be used in this application. Franklin, who was appointed a member of the committee, recommended a pointed end which was based on his earlier kite experiment. One dissenter on the committee had opted for a blunt end. Nevetheless, the committee’s recommendation was for a pointed end. King George III angered by Franklin’s political views, had asked Sir John Pringle, president of the society, to give an opinion in favor of the blunt end. Pringle replied that, “The laws of Nature were not changeable at royal pleasure.” To this the King indignantly responded, “…by the King’s authority that a president of the Royal Society entertaining such an opinion ought to resign.” Pringle promptly resigned. The London gossip soon found an apt verse to relish the moment.

While you, great George, for safety hunt,
And sharp conductors change for blunt,
The nation’s out of joint.
Franklin a wiser course pursues,
And all your thunder fearless views,
By keeping to the point.