What do you think?
Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar energy
Wind and solar energy have negative economic value. An objective analysis of the economics involved show that wind and solar are heavily subsidized. Some of the subsidies are open, but much of the subsidy is hidden from the public. There are special tax deals and sweetheart power purchase agreements. Although wind and solar are promoted as a low carbon solution, they are a remarkably expensive way to reduce carbon emissions. The erratic nature of wind and solar means it is necessary to have a dual system - the wind or solar, and in addition, a conventional system to backup the erratic wind or solar. Sometimes the wind does not blow. The sun does not shine when it is cloudy, or at night. Extensive lobbying and outright propaganda has convinced the public that it is a good idea to spend billions on this dumb wind and solar energy. The facts and figures are in this book, in an easily-understood format.
136 pages, Paperback
Published July 23, 2018
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
June 16, 2024
A “SERIOUS BOOK, FILLED WITH FACTS AND NUMBERS”
Author Norman Rogers wrote in the Introduction to this 2019 [3rd edition] book, “The big lie is that wind and solar are competitive with other sources of electricity. The reality is that wind and solar are subsidized by seventy percent. The scam is clever… Apparently it has not dawned on the supporters of the scam that solar does not work at night and wind only works when the wind is blowing… wind and solar… are erratic sources of electricity… Who the h___ thinks this dumb energy is a good way to supply electricity?... Wind and solar are… without subsidies, far more expensive than conventional sources of electricity. The environmental benefits are non-existent, and the economics only make sense if you think that healthy industries are on government welfare… The national obsession with renewable energy distracts from the real problems of the electric grid. The grid is vulnerable to a long-term collapse from sabotage, or even from a natural magnetic storm originating from the sun. Public money should not be spent for a wind and solar environment fantasy. This critique is a serious book, filled with facts and numbers.” (Pg. 4-5)
He outlines, “The idea of renewable energy as a reliable, comprehensive solution to future energy needs is an error, resting on these faulty assumptions: (1) We will run out of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. (2) Burning fossil fuels is dangerous to health and inevitably creates ugly contamination of the atmosphere. (3) Renewable energy is financially competitive. (4) Carbon dioxide emissions will create a climate disaster. These dubious assumptions will be disputed in this book.” (Pg. 8)
He continues, “This book presents facts to counter the massive propaganda promoting renewable energy. The propaganda comes from government agencies, the media, environmental pressure groups, and scientific associations. These groups are shirking their responsibility to present careful and factual analysis. There are honorable exceptions to renewable energy group think… The skeptic ranks are strengthened by some think tanks, intelligent politicians, and numerous scientists and engineers.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “Because wind and solar can’t be counted on, the ‘rest of the grid’ has to be able to stand alone, or very close to alone. To be clear: if wind and solar vanished overnight, the grid would get along perfectly well. Adding wind and solar to the grid does not replace any significant part of the existing grid because the existing grid must be ready to step in when wind or solar is generating little electricity.” (Pg. 25)
He asserts, “The propagandists for renewable power are practicing their own version of [George Orwell’s] Newspeak: let’s call it greenspeak. The greenspeakers have tempered with the meaning of the word pollution. Pollution of the air formerly meant adding toxic or poisonous substances to the air. But now, carbon dioxide has become pollution, even though it is a colorless, odorless gas. It is not toxic to animals or people and it is an essential nutrient for plant life. Now, however, the propagandists incessantly refer to ‘carbon pollution.’ Whatever effect carbon dioxide may have on climate, it is not air pollution.” (Pg. 38-39)
He suggests, “In my opinion… .[the] idea of 100 percent renewable energy by 2055, besides being impracticable, is also silly. There is no good reason to go to 100 percent renewable energy. If you believe in global warming the answer is nuclear. If you’re worried about running out of fuel the answer is coal, natural gas, or nuclear. None of these is officially renewable. But if you’re a believer in politically correct renewable, the answer is wind, solar, and hydrogen.” (Pg. 48)
He asserts, “As part of an economically rational structure, be assured that rooftop solar is not remotely competitive. It is a complete waste of money. But public policy concerning solar electricity is not rational, so it can be a good choice for certain homeowners if the current electric rate structures and subsidies continue for the next 20 years or so.” (Pg. 53) Later, he adds, “even if you believe the promoters of global warming, it does not logically follow that the right policy is to start installing windmills or solar farms. The right policy would be to start building CO2-free nuclear and hydro.” (Pg. 61)
He points out, “One of the common global warming alarmist claims is that sea level is going to rise by a few feet to 20 feet. Global warming is supposed to melt glaciers, or even worse, melt the total Greenland ice cap… Currently sea level is rising 1-3 millimeters per year or 4-12 inches a century. It is hard to know exactly how much, as there are complaints that the data is tampered with by global warming advocates. Measuring sea level to within a few millimeters is complicated by the fact that the land bordering the oceans is often slowly rising or falling, due to the melting of the heavy ice age, ice sheets. When the last ice age melted, between 20,000 and 5,000 years ago, sea level rose 400 feet, or an average of about 31 inches per century.” (Pg. 77-78)
He argues, “The advocates of global warming can easily explain the warming deficit in various ways that are difficult to prove or dispute. For example, they can claim that the ocean is absorbing heat, or they can claim that aerosols in the atmosphere are absorbing sunlight. The warming that has been experienced cannot be firmly linked to global warming from greenhouse gases as there are still other things that can cause global warming or cooling. Anything in the temperature record can be further explained away by assuming that it is chaotic variation, the climate being a non-linear chaotic system. This uncertainty works both ways. It the temperature started to rapidly increase, it would not prove the CO2 theory, because many things can cause global warming.” (Pg. 84)
He proposes “The Chernobyl accident was a worst case nuclear accident. As a consequence… 31 people were killed. Approximately 4,000 people got thyroid cancer… Contrast the deaths from the Chernobyl accident with 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from auto accidents, or 135,000 deaths from lung cancer caused by smoking… In the U.S. there have been nuclear accidents in the power industry, but never a significant release of radiation and very few deaths. For those who are worried about emissions of CO2, nuclear is the answer. The bottom line is that nuclear reactors are safe and have an excellent track record. The new generations of reactors will be even safer. The money spent on renewable energy would be better spent on nuclear energy and research into better nuclear energy.” (Pg. 94-95)
He concludes, “If the sugar and ethanol program can survive with little support beyond self-interested lobbying, it is difficult to see how the renewable energy program, with more diversified support, can be terminated. The best political attack on wind and solar may be to scream massive, seventy five percent, subsidy. Between the direct federal subsidies, tax equity financing and the sweetheart power purchase agreements an estimate of seventy five percent subsidy is reasonable… [it] is probably conservative. The advocates of renewable power will counter with a claim that fossil fuel is subsidized due to some modest tax arrangements. This is easily countered. They will also claim that emission of CO2 imposes costs on society. This can be countered with the benefits of CO2, wind and solar being expensive ways of saving CO2, and the dubious nature of the claims of global warming alarmism.” (Pg. 124-125)
This book will be of interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
Author Norman Rogers wrote in the Introduction to this 2019 [3rd edition] book, “The big lie is that wind and solar are competitive with other sources of electricity. The reality is that wind and solar are subsidized by seventy percent. The scam is clever… Apparently it has not dawned on the supporters of the scam that solar does not work at night and wind only works when the wind is blowing… wind and solar… are erratic sources of electricity… Who the h___ thinks this dumb energy is a good way to supply electricity?... Wind and solar are… without subsidies, far more expensive than conventional sources of electricity. The environmental benefits are non-existent, and the economics only make sense if you think that healthy industries are on government welfare… The national obsession with renewable energy distracts from the real problems of the electric grid. The grid is vulnerable to a long-term collapse from sabotage, or even from a natural magnetic storm originating from the sun. Public money should not be spent for a wind and solar environment fantasy. This critique is a serious book, filled with facts and numbers.” (Pg. 4-5)
He outlines, “The idea of renewable energy as a reliable, comprehensive solution to future energy needs is an error, resting on these faulty assumptions: (1) We will run out of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. (2) Burning fossil fuels is dangerous to health and inevitably creates ugly contamination of the atmosphere. (3) Renewable energy is financially competitive. (4) Carbon dioxide emissions will create a climate disaster. These dubious assumptions will be disputed in this book.” (Pg. 8)
He continues, “This book presents facts to counter the massive propaganda promoting renewable energy. The propaganda comes from government agencies, the media, environmental pressure groups, and scientific associations. These groups are shirking their responsibility to present careful and factual analysis. There are honorable exceptions to renewable energy group think… The skeptic ranks are strengthened by some think tanks, intelligent politicians, and numerous scientists and engineers.” (Pg. 9)
He states, “Because wind and solar can’t be counted on, the ‘rest of the grid’ has to be able to stand alone, or very close to alone. To be clear: if wind and solar vanished overnight, the grid would get along perfectly well. Adding wind and solar to the grid does not replace any significant part of the existing grid because the existing grid must be ready to step in when wind or solar is generating little electricity.” (Pg. 25)
He asserts, “The propagandists for renewable power are practicing their own version of [George Orwell’s] Newspeak: let’s call it greenspeak. The greenspeakers have tempered with the meaning of the word pollution. Pollution of the air formerly meant adding toxic or poisonous substances to the air. But now, carbon dioxide has become pollution, even though it is a colorless, odorless gas. It is not toxic to animals or people and it is an essential nutrient for plant life. Now, however, the propagandists incessantly refer to ‘carbon pollution.’ Whatever effect carbon dioxide may have on climate, it is not air pollution.” (Pg. 38-39)
He suggests, “In my opinion… .[the] idea of 100 percent renewable energy by 2055, besides being impracticable, is also silly. There is no good reason to go to 100 percent renewable energy. If you believe in global warming the answer is nuclear. If you’re worried about running out of fuel the answer is coal, natural gas, or nuclear. None of these is officially renewable. But if you’re a believer in politically correct renewable, the answer is wind, solar, and hydrogen.” (Pg. 48)
He asserts, “As part of an economically rational structure, be assured that rooftop solar is not remotely competitive. It is a complete waste of money. But public policy concerning solar electricity is not rational, so it can be a good choice for certain homeowners if the current electric rate structures and subsidies continue for the next 20 years or so.” (Pg. 53) Later, he adds, “even if you believe the promoters of global warming, it does not logically follow that the right policy is to start installing windmills or solar farms. The right policy would be to start building CO2-free nuclear and hydro.” (Pg. 61)
He points out, “One of the common global warming alarmist claims is that sea level is going to rise by a few feet to 20 feet. Global warming is supposed to melt glaciers, or even worse, melt the total Greenland ice cap… Currently sea level is rising 1-3 millimeters per year or 4-12 inches a century. It is hard to know exactly how much, as there are complaints that the data is tampered with by global warming advocates. Measuring sea level to within a few millimeters is complicated by the fact that the land bordering the oceans is often slowly rising or falling, due to the melting of the heavy ice age, ice sheets. When the last ice age melted, between 20,000 and 5,000 years ago, sea level rose 400 feet, or an average of about 31 inches per century.” (Pg. 77-78)
He argues, “The advocates of global warming can easily explain the warming deficit in various ways that are difficult to prove or dispute. For example, they can claim that the ocean is absorbing heat, or they can claim that aerosols in the atmosphere are absorbing sunlight. The warming that has been experienced cannot be firmly linked to global warming from greenhouse gases as there are still other things that can cause global warming or cooling. Anything in the temperature record can be further explained away by assuming that it is chaotic variation, the climate being a non-linear chaotic system. This uncertainty works both ways. It the temperature started to rapidly increase, it would not prove the CO2 theory, because many things can cause global warming.” (Pg. 84)
He proposes “The Chernobyl accident was a worst case nuclear accident. As a consequence… 31 people were killed. Approximately 4,000 people got thyroid cancer… Contrast the deaths from the Chernobyl accident with 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from auto accidents, or 135,000 deaths from lung cancer caused by smoking… In the U.S. there have been nuclear accidents in the power industry, but never a significant release of radiation and very few deaths. For those who are worried about emissions of CO2, nuclear is the answer. The bottom line is that nuclear reactors are safe and have an excellent track record. The new generations of reactors will be even safer. The money spent on renewable energy would be better spent on nuclear energy and research into better nuclear energy.” (Pg. 94-95)
He concludes, “If the sugar and ethanol program can survive with little support beyond self-interested lobbying, it is difficult to see how the renewable energy program, with more diversified support, can be terminated. The best political attack on wind and solar may be to scream massive, seventy five percent, subsidy. Between the direct federal subsidies, tax equity financing and the sweetheart power purchase agreements an estimate of seventy five percent subsidy is reasonable… [it] is probably conservative. The advocates of renewable power will counter with a claim that fossil fuel is subsidized due to some modest tax arrangements. This is easily countered. They will also claim that emission of CO2 imposes costs on society. This can be countered with the benefits of CO2, wind and solar being expensive ways of saving CO2, and the dubious nature of the claims of global warming alarmism.” (Pg. 124-125)
This book will be of interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review