Matt Ridley: Inconvenient Truths About 'Renewable' Energy

Posted on 22 May 2011 by Scottish-Sceptic

Once you examine it closely, the idea that “renewable” energy is green and clean looks less like a deduction than a superstition.
What does the word “renewable” mean? Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a thousand-page report on the future of renewable energy, which it defined as solar, hydro, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal and biomass. These energy sources, said the IPCC, generate about 13.8% of our energy and, if encouraged to grow, could eventually displace most fossil fuel use  (For More see:  source)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Matt Ridley: Inconvenient Truths About 'Renewable' Energy

  1. Douglas DC says:
    22 May 2011 at 17:43

    Looks to be an interesting summer. We hare the pacific NW have had so much water,
    out hydropower is taking up all the slack, they don’t even need the Nuke and Coal
    plants. The wind companies want the Bonneville Power folk to pay for the power they are not generating. So far the answer: “Stuff it!”…
    Oh and Grimsvotin Volcano has erupted. No Barbecue summer for the NH in general
    if that thing keeps gong…

  2. Douglas DC says:
    22 May 2011 at 17:43

    Here, not hare..

  3. Garry says:
    22 May 2011 at 18:18

    The case for “renewables” such as ethanol, switchgrass, algae, “biomass” (wood chips), and biodiesel is so numerically stupid that it is breathtaking that anyone with a college education would discuss it seriously.
    Depending upon the particular technology, we’re talking farms the size of Texas (and larger) or clear cutting forests across the entire length of the USA. Every year (which is distinctly nonrenewable and impossible).
    Let’s not even discuss the hideous ecological impacts of equipping the entire U.S. auto fleet (or even just the 12 million new cars each year) with 500 pounds of nickel, lead, and lithium batteries. Has anyone considered that China’s 16 million new car buyers might also want some of those materials for their battery-powered cars?
    It just goes on and on. The actual numeric reality for “renewables” is a frightening economic and ecological nightmare.

Comments are closed.