Comments 1 to 4:

1. funglestrumpet at 20:10 PM on 22 October, 2012
   This being the day of the week that general comments are accepted, I would like to draw readers’ attention to a paper written by Leo Smith who has an Masters in electrical sciences from Cambridge University (U.K.). It can be found at: http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf In summary, this paper argues that so-called renewables are by no means the panacea they are claimed to be regarding combating climate change and can, counter intuitively, in some instances lead to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. In short they are at worst a waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere and at best of minimal benefit. I have discussed energy issues with him elsewhere and find him to be very knowledgeable on the subject, though I am a mechanical engineer, not an electrical one and therein lies the rub. I am in need of a website that discusses remedies to climate change in depth so that I can judge such issues better. (I should point out that Smith is not convinced on the issue of climate change, but I consider that the professionalism that he has displayed elsewhere would preclude that influencing his scientific analysis, but it does amplify my need for other opinions.) To that end I believe that this site could sensibly give more prominence to specifically discussing ind depth methods of combating climate change. I cannot be the only one seeking guidance on the matter. It is very easy to take the view that ‘free’ energy has to be a good thing. But, on reading Smith’s paper it is possible to see how that is not necessarily the case. By all means we must carry on with examining the science behind the cause(s) of climate change, but surely the response of WUWT to the recent Arctic ice minimum shows that we are at a stage where those that still don’t believe in climate change are not going to change their mind anytime soon. Waiting for them to do so is a luxury that we just cannot afford. Their refusal to move on is no reason to hinder this site’s progress. For my part, I resent the despoiling of beautiful countryside with massive wind turbines, but tolerate them because I can see where climate change is taking us as a species. If, as Smith argues, they are of very little benefit to the fight against climate change, then I will feel that I have been badly misled and very angry about it. At present, I just don’t know for certain what the reality is. Smith’s paper is at least plausible and if it proves to be is essentially correct, then this side of the climate change issue has the responsibility to publicise it and even more importantly a need to be seen to do so. The ramifications will be bad enough if we do, but nothing like as bad as will be the case if we are seen as having blindly supported current renewables policy without having examined it in the depth that we usually do on scientific issues. There are now a considerable number of wind turbines installed around the world. What a tragedy it will be if all they do is stand as a monument to political folly in fighting climate change. What will be the chances of being believed in future whenever we call for action on climate change? “What about wind turbines!” will all too often be the response. The good news is that if we stop now, then in fact the current fleet can possibly be seen as beneficial to a small extent. Again, if Smith is correct, we need a new policy on carbon reduction. The only route that I can see is to go nuclear, preferably with a Manhattan style project on LFTR technology. If the Greens object, then let them offer an alternative. I just hope that Smith is wrong, but I will need proof. Or alternatively that some practical method of storing energy can be provided. Smith discusses it in depth and is not very hopeful.
   0 0
   Moderator Response: The appropriate Skeptical Science post is Renewables can’t provide baseload power. Everyone please respond there.
2. michael sweet at 00:34 AM on 23 October, 2012
   Funglestrumpet, At this site we like to use peer reviewed references. Your paper is only the personal opinion of a relatively poorly qualified person. Why doen't he have a PhD? Why doesn't he submit his paper for peer review. I went to refer to his sources and noticed there wern't any! There are ample threads on this site, try the renewable baseload for starters. Deniers of AGW also deny that renewables are usable. Peer reviewed papers document the possibilities. Search Scientific American solar and wind power for starters. I noticed your cite also likes nuclear in spite of the demonstrated safety issues.
   0 0
3. gws at 05:26 AM on 23 October, 2012
   funglestrumpet you and other blog commenters here (just two weeks ago) and elsewhere seem to trump that paper alot these days. A casual look into Leo Smith and his comments , quote "We have definite proof (France) that nuclear power works At a sane cost. We have definite proof (Germany) that massive investment in renewable energy does nothing to reduce carbon burn, and simply triples electricity prices instead." ... rule him out as a serious (unbiased) source IMHO.
   0 0
4. gws at 06:34 AM on 23 October, 2012
   Funglestrumpet: May I suggest the German Oeko-Institut as reliable source. You'll get some well-researched and fact-based information there. Try this page, e.g., http://www.oeko.de/publications/dok/1193.php Contact them, they will answer and point you in the right directions, both re nuclear and renewables.
   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.