Local View: Renewable energy (unlike nuclear option) only worsens our carbon footprint

As Paul Lorenzini wrote in “Saving the Environment from Environmentalism,” “We are living with an inherited environmental dogma that reflects old thinking and flawed premises.”
As a case in point, Eric Enberg’s Local View column Oct. 3 in the News Tribune (“Far from a drain, solar power a huge asset to society”), which supported photovoltaic solar power, failed to mention its carbon footprint - the amount of the carbon dioxide produced from the shovel in the ground to the power in your outlet - or the harmful effects on the environment created by mining the minerals that solar requires. Neither did it mention the fact that solar panels, like windmills, wear out in just two decades, so they need to be recycled, which requires more energy and creates thousands of tons of toxic byproducts.Also avoided was their 30 percent capacity factor, a measure of the power they produce compared to what their lobbyists, salesmen and impressionable “greens” claim when they say, “This facility can power 1,000 homes.” In reality, it’s just 300.Although Enberg claimed that “solar and battery storage is getting downright cheap,” he didn’t reveal that solar subsidies, via tax dollars, according to a 2011 report, exceeded subsidies for safer, 90 percent efficient nuclear power by 250 to one.And when he mentioned “those still clinging to fossil fuels,” he should have included wind and solar because both rely on coal or gas to provide 70 percent of their rated power.The carbon industries know that nuclear power will mean their demise, so they never speak ill of wind or solar.        Enberg wisely omitted concentrated solar power facilities like California’s bird-broiling Ivanpah solar array that focuses sunlight from 350,000 mirrors onto towers in which fluids are heated to 1,000 degrees. (Birds that fly too close to the towers are incinerated mid-flight.) Unfortunately, Ivanpah, which was built with a $1.6 billion federal loan, only delivers 23 percent of its rated power. Worse yet, its managers recently sought permission to increase gas usage to “heat things up” before sunrise, which would add 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year to our already burdened atmosphere.In California, thanks to the growth of “green” renewables, between 2001 and 2010, 87 percent of new-energy generation was provided by natural gas, partly due to the closure of the carbon dioxide-free San Onofre nuclear power plant. Pressured by the Sierra Club and its clones, the government chose to “save” the $600 million needed to replace defective, Japanese steam generators, deciding instead to decommission the plant at a cost of $4.5 billion.  This year, the National Academy of Sciences reported that the cost of federal subsidies for 30 percent “carbon-free” renewables like wind and solar is a stunning $250 for each ton of carbon saved. Worse yet, these inefficient “alternatives” tend to displace 90 percent efficient nuclear generators that operate 24/7 but, paradoxically, get no compensation for being carbon-free.In 2015, our nuclear plants safely produced 839 terawatt hours of carbon dioxide-free electricity. That’s four times as much electricity as all carbon-consuming, carbon dioxide-creating U.S. wind projects, 21 times as much as all carbon-consuming, carbon dioxide-producing U.S. solar, and three times as much as all U.S. hydropower facilities.A final example: faced by a hostile political climate, the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant decided in 2013 to close the plant, even though its license had been extended through 2032. And, while the politicians and greens celebrated, the regional administrator of the electric market, ISO-New England, stayed realistic, writing, “The retirement of this nuclear station will cause … greater dependence on natural gas.”Ultimately, three issues must concern us: carbon emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint. But the renewables-only policy worsens all three.As I’ve written before, nuclear power is far more green than its carbon-burning alternatives, which, instead of being constantly “greenwashed” by our media, should be painted black for the carbon they burn, gold for their hidden costs that include subsidies, and red for their death prints - all of which greatly exceed the statistics for nuclear power. My previous response to a pro-wind article by Enberg closed with an offer to provide a free presentation on energy issues to the group he heads, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. That offer still stands. George Erickson of Eveleth is a member of the National Center for Science Education and of the Thorium Energy Alliance. Contact him at tundracub@exede.net or at (218) 744-2003. His website is tundracub.com.As Paul Lorenzini wrote in “Saving the Environment from Environmentalism,” “We are living with an inherited environmental dogma that reflects old thinking and flawed premises.”
As a case in point, Eric Enberg’s Local View column Oct. 3 in the News Tribune (“Far from a drain, solar power a huge asset to society”), which supported photovoltaic solar power, failed to mention its carbon footprint - the amount of the carbon dioxide produced from the shovel in the ground to the power in your outlet - or the harmful effects on the environment created by mining the minerals that solar requires. Neither did it mention the fact that solar panels, like windmills, wear out in just two decades, so they need to be recycled, which requires more energy and creates thousands of tons of toxic byproducts.Also avoided was their 30 percent capacity factor, a measure of the power they produce compared to what their lobbyists, salesmen and impressionable “greens” claim when they say, “This facility can power 1,000 homes.” In reality, it’s just 300.Although Enberg claimed that “solar and battery storage is getting downright cheap,” he didn’t reveal that solar subsidies, via tax dollars, according to a 2011 report, exceeded subsidies for safer, 90 percent efficient nuclear power by 250 to one.And when he mentioned “those still clinging to fossil fuels,” he should have included wind and solar because both rely on coal or gas to provide 70 percent of their rated power.The carbon industries know that nuclear power will mean their demise, so they never speak ill of wind or solar.        Enberg wisely omitted concentrated solar power facilities like California’s bird-broiling Ivanpah solar array that focuses sunlight from 350,000 mirrors onto towers in which fluids are heated to 1,000 degrees. (Birds that fly too close to the towers are incinerated mid-flight.) Unfortunately, Ivanpah, which was built with a $1.6 billion federal loan, only delivers 23 percent of its rated power. Worse yet, its managers recently sought permission to increase gas usage to “heat things up” before sunrise, which would add 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year to our already burdened atmosphere.In California, thanks to the growth of “green” renewables, between 2001 and 2010, 87 percent of new-energy generation was provided by natural gas, partly due to the closure of the carbon dioxide-free San Onofre nuclear power plant. Pressured by the Sierra Club and its clones, the government chose to “save” the $600 million needed to replace defective, Japanese steam generators, deciding instead to decommission the plant at a cost of $4.5 billion.  This year, the National Academy of Sciences reported that the cost of federal subsidies for 30 percent “carbon-free” renewables like wind and solar is a stunning $250 for each ton of carbon saved. Worse yet, these inefficient “alternatives” tend to displace 90 percent efficient nuclear generators that operate 24/7 but, paradoxically, get no compensation for being carbon-free.In 2015, our nuclear plants safely produced 839 terawatt hours of carbon dioxide-free electricity. That’s four times as much electricity as all carbon-consuming, carbon dioxide-creating U.S. wind projects, 21 times as much as all carbon-consuming, carbon dioxide-producing U.S. solar, and three times as much as all U.S. hydropower facilities.A final example: faced by a hostile political climate, the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant decided in 2013 to close the plant, even though its license had been extended through 2032. And, while the politicians and greens celebrated, the regional administrator of the electric market, ISO-New England, stayed realistic, writing, “The retirement of this nuclear station will cause … greater dependence on natural gas.”Ultimately, three issues must concern us: carbon emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint. But the renewables-only policy worsens all three.As I’ve written before, nuclear power is far more green than its carbon-burning alternatives, which, instead of being constantly “greenwashed” by our media, should be painted black for the carbon they burn, gold for their hidden costs that include subsidies, and red for their death prints - all of which greatly exceed the statistics for nuclear power. My previous response to a pro-wind article by Enberg closed with an offer to provide a free presentation on energy issues to the group he heads, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. That offer still stands. George Erickson of Eveleth is a member of the National Center for Science Education and of the Thorium Energy Alliance. Contact him at tundracub@exede.net or at (218) 744-2003. His website is tundracub.com.