Matt Ridley: Realistic roundup of renewables

Bob Greene:

Renewable energy summarized very nicely

Originally posted on Tallbloke's Talkshop:

Matt Ridley article for the Times, reposted from the GWPF, because as many people as possible need to read it and think. Then act by using your vote sensibly.

Date: 28/07/14 Matt Ridley, The Times

wind-costsIf wood-burning power stations are less eco-friendly than coal, we are getting the search for clean energy all wrong
On Saturday my train was diverted by engineering works near Doncaster. We trundled past some shiny new freight wagons decorated with a slogan: “Drax — powering tomorrow: carrying sustainable biomass for cost-effective renewable power”. Serendipitously, I was at that moment reading a report by the chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the burning of wood in Yorkshire power stations such as Drax. And I was feeling vindicated.

A year ago I wrote in these pages that it made no sense for the consumer to…

View original 754 more words

5 responses to “Matt Ridley: Realistic roundup of renewables

  1. Go read the trail of threads and documents. Great Stuff!

    The ‘Cost-Energy Equivalence Law’ is a marvelous metric. We (who are paying attention) know that solar and wind cost several times the production cost of traditionally fueled generators, but this helps measure the costs from another perspective and in the process converges with the actual experienced dollar costs of the stupid windmills and hobby level solar panels.

  2. When I first heard of the wood burning for power scheme, I thought it was The Onion, or perhaps some notes from the late Douglas Adams. No one could be that stupid. Yet it seems that they really are doing it. Good grief. Along with “stupid windmills” this proves Pogo’s comment: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

    • yep Old Grouch, I had to re-read that part to understand that they were cutting trees in the US and SHIPPING them to Airstrip One to burn.

      OMG! The carbon costs of that silliness must be HUGE, and as noted elsewhere in those articles, you can’t grow a tree as fast as you can burn it so it it NOT carbon neutral nor gaining on it.

      Day after day I feel like I should start looking for Alice so we can get out through the rabbit hole.

  3. I have family in southern Mississippi that are into, among many other things, forestry. It was from them that I first heard of the wood by-products being sent to Europe to be burnt in power stations. That was about 2-3 years ago. They way I understand it, is that sawdust is what’s being sent. I don’t believe that whole trees are shipped, but the left over from the lumber and paper industries. I could be wrong because I understood that most, if not all, timber waste was used one way or another. Paper mills often burn waste to generate some of the power they need. Lumber mills sell sawdust to charcoal makers and some mills burn their own sawdust to generate power.

    So where is all this extra wood coming from?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s