I read the article
from which this broad pronouncement came and it makes me cringe. I love the
way green-energy articles are
written. The writer makes it sound as
though this solar energy could be
produced in sufficient quantities to replace other forms of energy.
However, a careful reading of the first paragraph illustrates the
problem. The solar plant could only produce these numbers on two days, and only
during the "midday hours at a certain time of year." Which means that it could produce that energy
for only a few hours per day. Assume that it
was for four hours. Unfortunately, we
have a 24-hour day, half of which is essentially without sunlight at the location listed.
The author also
fails to take into account the transportation industry and also fails to
identify the nuclear power plants to which he is comparing output. France gets nearly 80 percent of its energy
from nuclear. They send their spent fuel
to Russia for recycling. Stationary
energy needs are a whole different species when one considers the needs for
vehicles. It is becoming apparent that
electrical vehicles have been a major
bust. Consider the "Tesla" and the NYT's review of the vehicle.
Also if you will
note, the time of year was May 26, 2012, not December 26, 2012. The angle of the sun also has an impact
including the number of rain days and time of year. Germany has an average of
roughly 20 inches of rain per month, and snow during winter. This severely curtails production of solar
power over a sustained period. Yet the
Germans pay a premium (on top of the regular cost) of 5-billion dollars for the
privilege of a few hours of solar power during the day. Production per hour for this solar energy
becomes fundamentally unrealistic to the average person.
In paragraph 9, the
author admits that this was a particular "bright" period. That is a critical admission.
This production is
totally controlled by the weather.
Perhaps if we allow global warming
to increase we would have more sunny days and thus more solar
production. But since Solar, wind and
bio-fuels are heavily subsidized by the government, that is to say by
taxpayers, hold on to your wallets.
The question then
becomes: Can we afford it or can ours or any economy afford it. The world is poised to hit some incredible
hard economic headwinds when the money printing binge bubble bursts and it will
burst. Would you want to be locked into
paying at least four to six times the price of electrical energy produced by
natural gas let's say, when it does?
Then there are the
environmental and visual impacts. Earth
beneath these mammoth-acreage solar plants is essentially sterile, but
apparently no one considers that anti-green side effect . Research also says it would take a solar or
wind plant about the size of Connecticut just to power just New York city
24/7. Solar, wind and bio-fuels have
proven that they are years in the future if feasible at all. Other sources are much more practical and
feasible and wouldn't bankrupt the average family. These so-called alternative energy sources are a sad
pipe-dream.
Just my humble
opinion, of course.