Shock News : Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)


February 4, 2014

Viv Forbes

Germany’s wind and solar power generation came to a standstill in late 2013. More than 23,000 wind turbines ran out of wind and most of the one million photovoltaic systems ran out of sunlight. For a whole week, coal nuclear and gas-powered plants generated an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity.

Britain has 3,500 wind turbines, but during a period of extreme cold they produced just 1.8% of UK’s electricity. But, gluttons for punishment, politicians intend building more.

When electricity demand peaked at the height of the recent heatwave in Southern Australia, the total power output from the fleet of wind farms across Victoria and South Australia was almost zero. Solar panels worked at their peak for a short time during the heat of the afternoon, but waned as the sun moved on and smokiness increased.

At dinner time on any still, cold winter night, when all suburban stoves, lights, TV’s and heaters need power, solar panels sit in the dark, powerless. And the idle wind turbines are probably drawing power from the grid for heating, lubrication, electro-magnets, hydraulics and start-up.

Despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars on conferences, green energy subsidies, research, carbon taxes, carbon trading, solar and wind subsidies, plant construction, additional transmission lines and back-up power, wind and solar only produce a derisory share of world energy (“zero” if rounded to the nearest whole number).

We keep hearing how “research” will solve the key green energy problems, but no amount of research can alter the fact that solar energy will always be variable, intermittent and dilute.

Even if solar panels collected 100% of the solar energy that fell on them, and no dust or snow ever covered the panels, the output is always variable and intermittent, with the rise and fall of the sun, the long night and the variable clouds, snow and dust.

Similarly the wind is variable, often too weak, sometimes too strong, and even when it is just right, there may be no demand for that surge of power. Germany has 23,000 wind turbines – they produce an average of about 17% of their installed capacity; on some days, they harvest nothing except subsidies (and they are good at that).

And crucially, both wind and solar energy are very dilute, so large areas of land are required to collect significant energy and to build the spider-web of roads and transmission lines required to connect to each other and to the grid. Solar panels rob green plants underneath of their sunlight. Wind turbines annoy neighbours with their noise, devalue their properties and slice up eagles, bats and migrating birds. These are very significant human and environmental costs never mentioned by green energy disciples and promoters.

No amount of research can change the key intermittent and dilute nature of green energy. We should stop wasting ever-increasing amounts of money on pointless research.

Even if we invented magic batteries (small with massive capacity, low cost, no energy losses and everlasting life), the green energy plants would still need to spend over 60% of the energy they generate to charge the batteries in order to produce 24/7 power.

There are places when green energy is appropriate and useful, and people should be free to use it at their own expense. But for grid power, it is not fit-for-purpose.

All of this explains why Green Germany is now using more coal than it did in 2009 and its power supply is more expensive and less reliable.

World Energy Production   Cumulative
Carbon Fuels (Oil, Gas, Coal) 87%  87% 
Nuclear 5% 92%
Hydro 6% 98%
Wood, Waste, Cow Dung 2% 100%
Wind, Solar Too embarrassing to report 100%

(estimates – sources vary and none reports everything).

Useful Sources: 

Viv Forbes is the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition. He is a geologist, mineral economist, “political gadfly”, part time company director and full time sheep and cattle breeder. He has a Bachelor Degree in Applied Science (Geology).

via American Thinker – Blog: Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid

H/t to Andy Semple – Andy’s Rant!



Land needed to replace all Coal, Natural Gas and Oil based electricity generation

Screen Shot 2013-12-08 at , December 8, 6.09.45 PM

Source : C3: UK Govt Reveals Incredible Land Waste From Solar & Wind Energy Facilities Versus Single Nuclear Plant


Nuclear power vs wind farms: the infographic the Government doesn’t want you to see – Telegraph Blogs



The Renewable Energy Vs. Fossil Fuel Subsidy Myth :


Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked « JoNova

Global Energy Investment Vs. Energy Production :

RENEWABLES v FOSSIL FUELS - value for money

Data source : Rio+20 side event: A Green and Inclusive Economy – The Finance Ministers’ Perspective (UNEP)


See also :

Wind / Solar Related :

Environmental Damage Caused By Renewable Energy:

Energy Related :

Quote source – The green Agenda

12 Comments on “Shock News : Green Energy Not Fit for the Grid”

  1. Matt Slevin says:

    There are many misleading facts in this article and some completely untrue. Im fed up of ignorant people giving out about what they dont understand nor are willing to listen too or research properly. The world is running out of fossil fuels and if you still want to be able to power your shower, fridge, TV, heating. You will need some other form of electricity. One preferably that wont run out or cost an arm and a leg. In this article i see no mention of fuel costs? Why? This comment being from someone who knows a little about the situation. A second year Electrical Engineering student.


    • Climatism says:

      If you want energy to cost ‘an arm and a leg’, then renewables are your answer.

      In a nutshell, most alternatives are 2-3 times as expensive, except for solar which is 5 times the price.

      Renewable energy is a $250 billion dollar industry that makes about 3% of our electricity.

      Fossils Fuels are a $300 billion dollar industry that make up the other 97%.

      Fusion is the future. All materials required are found in sea water.


    • Climatism says:

      “There are many misleading facts in this article and some completely untrue.”

      Please indicate.


    • millennia97 says:

      Why is it detractors always pile in and say an article is rubbish then totally fail to point out where – meaning it is just a knee jerk dogmatic reaction and not an argument defence at all.

      Solar and wind are unreliable – fact. Turbines do not work when the wind is too low or too high (in the latter case in the UK we pay THREE TIMES the generation rate when they are not producing). Solar doesn’t work at night (except in Spain where they connected diesel generators to the outflow so they could claim the huge tariffs and were only caught out when a Govt official noticed they produced energy 24×7), is much less efficient during cloudy days and pretty useless when the panels are covered in snow (so that’s winter taken care of, when we need energy more than any other time and a dump of snow followed by a large high pressure and freezing temperatures leaves us, quite literally, powerless).

      What gets me about AGW theory (which it still is by the way, not a physical law) is that it doesn’t pass the common sense test.

      If you are demonstrating gravity – hardly an uncomplicated subject – the test is straightforward: hold a ball in the air, let go, if it falls it meets the theory otherwise the observer says to go back to the drawing board. If it goes sideways do you chase after them telling them they are just scientifically illiterate and it went sideways because of some special effect in place at that time? No, you set up a condition that invalidates the theory if it occurs, and in that way the absence of that condition intensifies your reliance on that theory.

      So with global warming, you first had to change the name to climate change when the globe stopped warming, but the worst part of it is the total inability to demonstrate it to the man in the street to meet the common sense test: what weather do you see that proves the effect is happening at all?

      Getting warmer – aha – there you go that proves it. Er, record cold, well it’s climate change and unusual so that fits the theory. Floods – aha – warmer world is wetter so there you go. Droughts, well, yeah, climate change you see – it’s different so it MUST be the cause. Record snow, floods AND cold so that fits! More storms – aha – see told you! Record time gap since US lat hit by major Hurricane – well that’s a circulation change so that fits. Jet steam shift – climate change caused by stronger trade winds in pacific, except when it’s caused by weaker trade winds in pacific.

      Not a single weather phenomenon that happens outside a partly cloudy day with light winds, a light shower, and a temperature of 15 deg C – so the ‘average’ for the whole planet – can be used to falsify the theory because they have all been claimed by climate change.

      All of this just to prove that an extreme (as in never happened before) climatic condition is occurring at all, none of it any indication of the actual cause. Yet we demand a trillion dollars we don’t have is spent to do something about it or we definitely have no future.

      At this point the person in the street looks at you like you’re a nutball and turns away…. and you chase after them and remind them they are not a climate scientist….


    • You have the brains then. Keep studying & you may see the light.


  2. Herve says:

    Germany every year wastes 24B€ to subsidy renewable electricity (representing only 13% of the total and it is clear that they cannot utileze the entire output, like Denmark which pains to utilize more than 35%, the balance shall be thrown to exports…).
    To make the same amouint of CO² free electricity, Germany would have only to invest in 4 new 1500MW nuclear plants, costing all together 24B€, only once in 60years.
    While wind/PV need 24B€ EVERY YEAR, for ever, to run…
    Where are the famous idiots?


  3. gator69 says:

    FYI – You are being dissed…

    “Even if we invented magic batteries (small with massive capacity, low cost, no energy losses and everlasting life), the green energy plants would still need to spend over 60% of the energy they generate to charge the batteries in order to produce 24/7 power.”

    There is not one single calculation provided to support this assertion…in fact, there appears to be very few calculations and a lack of recognition for the proper sources.

    Like I say, you don’t care about facts, and now you are about to reply to me instead of doing something to save the poor, you don’t care about the poor either.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.