The fallacy of wind ever being “economic”

The theory of Enerconics tells us that:

An economy is a means to turn energy into things that are useful or of value.

This is completely at odds with traditional economics which views energy as just another commodity. The big difference, is that Enerconics recognises that an economy is constrained by energy supply, and that the key fundamentals are how much energy we can get for a day’s worth of work and how much utility and value we can create from each unit of energy.

The problem with wind “power” is that it doesn’t do anything to increase energy supply, nor does it do anything to increase the productivivty of the economy (in terms of utily from energy). Instead, it reduces energy supply, or to be more specific, it reduces the average amount of energy that any individual can afford … which we see as either rising energy prices, or reducing incomes.

The fallacy of green=gullible thinking

The way the green=gullible brigade think is this: because wind is “free” (so too is coal, oil etc,), because it is free, they believe the cost of wind does not increase due to wider economic factors … like the cost of energy. So, they imagine that if they deliberately increase the price of fossil fuels, that the cost of wind, whilst startinbg high, will remain the same and become less expensive than fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, the truth is that all energy is “free”. Coal is “free” in the ground … we only need to pay to dig it up. So wind is “free” in the air, we only need to pay to harvest it. So too is wood, oil, solar, …. they are all free, until we take acount of the price of the means to turn that energy source into something of utility.

And, what affects the cost of turning it into something useful to us? Overwhelmingly it is the price of energy. Specificially, the price of all that energy used to turn iron-ore into iron (and to power the homes, the schoools, to make the clothers, grow the food of those involved in the mining, production, transport, installation, etc. of wind). So, if the price of energy rises, then the price of wind “energy” also rises, so that if it starts higher than other fuels, it continues to remain higher, even when the price of other fuels increases.

Now, I’m not entirely ruling out secondary effects. Energy is the single most important constraint affecting the cost, but it isn’t the only one. So, other things could become a factor at very high costs. But, the idea that wind “energy” will just stay the same price as energy prices rise, is a total fallacy.

I’ll end with a quote from Net Zero Watch:

“The belief in falling wind power costs is the central foundation of the government’s Net Zero enterprise, and it is demonstrably false. The absurdity of current Net Zero plans is now exposed for all to see.” 

This entry was posted in Enerconics. Bookmark the permalink.