The public health benefits of adding offshore wind to the grid

June 19, 2018 by Jonathan Buonocore, The Conversation
Offshore wind turbine near Scotland. Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior

New plans to build two commercial offshore wind farms near the Massachusetts and Rhode Island coasts have sparked a lot of discussion about the vast potential of this previously untapped source of electricity.

But as an environmental health and climate researcher, I'm intrigued by how this gust of offshore wind power may improve . Replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy, research shows, can reduce risks of asthma, hospitalizations and heart attacks. In turn, that can save lives.

So my colleagues and I calculated the health impact of generating electricity through offshore wind turbines – which until now the U.S. has barely begun to do.

Greening the grid

New England gets almost none of its electricity from burning coal and more than three-quarters of it from burning natural gas and operating nuclear reactors. The rest is from hydropower and from renewable energy, including wind and solar power and the burning of wood and refuse.

The health benefits of moving to wind power would be significant, particularly for regions that rely more heavily on coal and oil to generate electricity.

Replacing coal and oil with offshore wind will reduce emissions of air pollutants like fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. These pollutants can form smog, soot and ozone. When people downwind are exposed to them, they can develop incapacitating and deadly diseases.

The public health benefits of adding offshore wind to the grid
Credit: The Conversation

Saving 13 lives a year

When my colleagues and I studied what would happen if offshore wind farms were installed off the Mid-Atlantic coast, we determined that they would bring about health and climate benefits.

We projected that a 1,100-megawatt wind farm off the coast of New Jersey, a bit smaller than the two approved , would save around 13 lives per year.

When connected to the grid, this new source of power would make carbon emissions decline by around 2.2 million tons every year, the equivalent to taking over 400,000 cars off the road.

Offshore wind faces a number of technical and economic hurdles, including installation of transmission lines. But at least theoretically, this form of could generate enough electricity to supply all the electricity the U.S. consumes and then some, according to the Energy Department. Members of the Trump administration, including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, appear to support offshore wind.

While it may not be possible, practical or necessary to build offshore wind everywhere, even replacing a small portion of the nation's fossil-fueled will be good for everyone's health.

Explore further: Wind energy's swift growth, explained (Update)

Related Stories

Wind energy's swift growth, explained (Update)

April 23, 2018

The wind industry is growing quickly around the world, especially in China and the U.S., where the total amount of electricity generated by wind turbines nearly doubled between 2011 and 2017.

Danish wind power whips up record 43% of electricity

January 11, 2018

Wind power generated 43.4 percent of electricity consumed in Denmark last year, a new record for the Nordic nation which aims to rely on renewables for half of its energy needs by 2030, authorities said Thursday.

Wind output in Denmark last year was a record-setter

January 9, 2018

An impressive share of a country's energy consumption through wind? That is one more sign of wind energy's potential as countries look for cleaner energy alternatives. The spotlight goes on Denmark.

Recommended for you

A novel approach of improving battery performance

September 18, 2018

New technological developments by UNIST researchers promise to significantly boost the performance of lithium metal batteries in promising research for the next-generation of rechargeable batteries. The study also validates ...

Germany rolls out world's first hydrogen train

September 17, 2018

Germany on Monday rolled out the world's first hydrogen-powered train, signalling the start of a push to challenge the might of polluting diesel trains with costlier but more eco-friendly technology.

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2018
"...Replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy..."
"...Replacing coal and oil with offshore wind will reduce emissions of air pollutants..."
Wind and solar are inherently intermittent and don't replace fossil fuels, they just provide them with "greenwashing".
wind/solar = 20% wind/solar + 80% coal/oil/gas

"good ideas are copied, bad ideas are imposed".
If solar/wind were really so good, it wouldn't be necessary massive mass media propaganda, subsides/tax incentives, constitutional laws, mandates, to force people to use sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
https://pbs.twimg...W2cf.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jWlw.jpg
Notice:It wasn't necessary massive mass media propaganda to induce people to use computers, cell phones, washing machines, etc. unlike solar panels and windmills, useless placebos, decorative facade for fossil fuels, that needed to be shoved down people's throats.
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
Oh, willie, your Carbon Lobby masters and ICE bosses much be goading you on mighty fierce. To agitpropping that crapulous with all the fervor of a street-corner evangelist.

Your dominants are just pissed that they are being shoved aside from the public subsidy teats they have been suckling at for a century! That new enterprises, with youthful vigor and future-oriented technology have left them in the dust of obsolescence.

Well you might worry. You denier chattel are seeing your comfy jobs of denying reality slipping away. As this Modern Society progresses to salvaging survival from your poisonous efforts.
humy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
"...Members of the Trump administration, including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, appear to support offshore wind....."

So EVEN the TRUMP administration appears to make a bit more sense than the stupid dirty-pollution-lover propagandist WillieWard!
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
But Willie supports the gubermint shoving nukes and coal down are throats - hypocrite much -
President Donald Trump has directed Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take "immediate steps" to bolster struggling coal-fired and nuclear power plants to keep them open
https://www.usnew...r-plants
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
"...Members of the Trump administration, including Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, appear to support offshore wind....."

So EVEN the TRUMP administration appears to make a bit more sense...
They have realized that intermittent renewables are the best of way of providing "greenwashing" for the fossil fuel industry, mainly to keep expansion of the natural gas(fracking) industry.
"Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS."
https://pbs.twimg..._BIl.jpg
https://uploads.d...a254.jpg
WillieWard
3 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
...supports ... nukes and coal ...
I only support carbon-free nuclear energy, the only scalable way to stop Climate Change, the safest per unit of energy produced, fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than renewables.
Wind/solar(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions.
"Ex-Nasa scientist: 30 years on, world is failing 'miserably' to address climate change" - Jun 19, 2018
"Jerry Brown, the progressive governor of California, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, are "both pretending to be solving the problem" while being unambitious and shunning low-carbon nuclear power..."
https://www.thegu...-warning
"we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented instead of installed renewable "capacity." Then maybe wind and solar will be seen as the pseudoscientific fraud it is."
greenonions1
4 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
"we should measure climate progress based on tons of CO2 emissions prevented


Good idea
On average, wind generation today will avoid approximately 0.70 metric tons of CO2 for every megawatt hour of wind generation. A typical new wind turbine will avoid over 4,300 metric tons of CO2 annually, nearly 900 cars' worth of CO2 emissions


Still waiting for your cost curve on nukes - we want to compare it to wind and solar... Come on potty mouth - surely you can find one somewhere in google....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
Still waiting for your cost curve on nukes - we want to compare it to wind and solar... Come on potty mouth - surely you can find one somewhere in google....
Cost curve? National security and an affordable source of fissiles for both defense and colonizing the solar system... priceless.

Please elucidate the cost curve of confinement to one planet and the potential for extinction of the species.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2018
Oh, willie, your Carbon Lobby masters and ICE bosses much be goading you on mighty fierce. To agitpropping that crapulous with all the fervor of a street-corner evangelist.......HEE....HAWWW.

The Chicken Little Jackass so enjoys hearing itself bray.

France and Germany Turn to Coal
https://institute...rn-coal/
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
On average, wind generation today will avoid approximately 0.70 metric tons of CO2 for every megawatt hour of wind generation. A typical new wind turbine will avoid over 4,300 metric tons of CO2 annually, nearly 900 cars' worth of CO2 emissions
Remember "Batteries Not Included". So why are wind/solar a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions? Because they are backed up 80% of time by coal/gas-fired power plants to compensate intermittencies.
we want to compare it to wind and solar...
It's the same as comparing apples and oranges, nuclear is reliable(weather-resilient), wind/solar is "unreliable" (weather-dependent) decorative facade for the coal/oil/gas industries.
"Nuclear however provides reliable electricity, wind does not. Like apples and oranges you wouldn't expect them to cost the same price."
https://pbs.twimg...UIM9.jpg
"Energy Storage/Batteries never included in the final costs."
greenonions1
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
Please elucidate the cost curve of confinement to one planet and the potential for extinction of the species
Has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Just trying to get potty mouth to give us real world numbers on the current vs the past costs of nuclear energy. I am as supportive as any one of the development of technologies - hoping like you that we will explore beyond the confines of our planet - with what ever technology we can come up with.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
Willei
It's the same as comparing apples and oranges
No it is not. Both generate electricity. We know about intermittency - and it does not make it apples to oranges. Here is an interesting and I think well balanced look at the issue of nukes vs renewables. It basically concludes exactly what I have been saying all along. The best way to decarbonize as quickly as possible - is to allow nukes and renewables to co-exist, and to build out the flexible grid over time - with the main emphasis on displacing fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Of course - the biggest enemy to what seems to me to be a common sense approach - is the lock grip of the fossil fuel interests - and religious zealot liars like you Willie - who are drowning under the rising tide of reality. Still waiting for that cost curve potty mouth. https://www.vox.c...nd-solar
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
Just trying to get potty mouth to give us real world numbers on the current vs the past costs of nuclear energy
...with the intent of demonstrating that it is becoming even more impractical. But cost-competitive energy is not the reason we have it. Fissiles are the most valuable commodities a species on the verge of leaving its homeworld can possess. The commercial nuclear power industry, along with the dire threat of nuclear war, were the only ways of producing the quantities of these materials we needed to both secure the planet and leave it in a sustainable way.

Why we have nuclear power is ALWAYS the subject at hand.
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
So why are wind/solar a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions? Because they are backed up 80% of time by coal/gas-fired power plants to compensate intermittencies.
So you are a pro-nuclear advocate; then answer why nuclear is so expensive, to build, run, and dispose of? Do you realize how much it costs to decommission a nuclear plant? Then you have the odd freak situations where if something goes bad.... it goes really bad and can endanger area the size of a state. Have you ever watched the movie; "China Syndrome"? and wondered if it's BS, and then look a Fukushima. So insurance for an N-plant is huge, electricity from an N-plant is huge (the most expensive fuel there is), the construction costs are huge, expensive and not economical.

Solar and wind are cheap, very very en-expensive in all aspects to alternatives systems of electrical generation. That is why you see more and more wind farms and solar installations being installed.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
otto
Why we have nuclear power is ALWAYS the subject at hand
Because you say so? I am talking about the choices we make in terms of our electrical energy generation. I am a supporter of nuclear energy. I think in terms of our electrical generation - we should make decisions based on numerous factors. The real world is telling us that smart money goes with renewables - based on the analysis of those factors - which is why there is a great deal of investment going on around the world in renewables. Of course we should continue to develop technologies to facilitate space exploration. It seems that when the equation gets more than one variable - you have trouble keeping up otto.
howhot3
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
Let me add some other reasons for building out wind and solar farms besides the economics and "coolness" factors of it. Construction costs are low, the pollution created is low, the health benefits are high locally, and the geo-impact is low. Coal plants are just not desirable any more for health concerns and geo-impact issues. Natural gas currently has the lions share of new installs, but it has fluctuating fuel costs and fuel instabilities as well as a geo-impact to deal with.

@ghost, besides if you where on an interstellar flight powered by nuclear reactor propulsion, would you not be really really concerned about the radiation left over from your fuel cycle?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
@ghost, besides if you where on an interstellar flight powered by nuclear reactor propulsion, would you not be really really concerned about the radiation left over from your fuel cycle?
Bwahaahaaaaaa no haha. You should be concerned where I have my exhaust plume pointed.

@GO you should not struggle so hard to find something to disagree with otto about.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
GO you should not struggle so hard to find something to disagree with otto about
If you insert yourself into a thread - and say something dumb - happy to take a second to give my two cents.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
if you where on an interstellar flight powered by nuclear reactor propulsion, would you not be really really concerned about the radiation left over from your fuel cycle?

Actually I'd be concerned anywhere but on an interstellar flight. The designs I've seen bandied about for nuclear powered spacecraft over the past decades all have the reactors located way behind the habitable section (either towed or on very long pylons with only the powerlines connected to the rest of the ship). That way you can basically forego any shielding.
On earth nuclear fission makes no sense. In space it's much less problematic (well, from an ecological/health aspect...not from a technical aspect).
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
No it is not. Both generate electricity.
So try to generate electricity with wind/solar to power a super aircraft carrier, or even a small ship.
Notice not even Greenpeace relies on sunshine&breeze unicorn energy to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats, they use marine DIESEL and sails just for decoration.
"US Nimitz-class SUPERCARRIER..."
https://youtu.be/TN7BjeRad2I
https://pbs.twimg...Seu3.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Ql6L.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...w7uD.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...kLYS.jpg
The best way to decarbonize as quickly as possible - is to allow nukes and renewables to co-exist ... the main emphasis on displacing fossil fuels...
Intermittent renewables are parasites, they only exist to provide "greenwashing"(decorative facade) for fossil fuels.
"If you have nuclear, why piss around with wind & solar? Variable cost of fuel in a nuclear plant is small."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
if you insert yourself and say something dumb
But you were already here and said something dumb like
The real world is telling us that smart money goes with renewables - based on the analysis of those factors
-because as I pointed out, the principal factors you failed to consider were national security and off-world power supply. So I felt obligated to interject.
which is why there is a great deal of investment going on around the world in renewables. Of course we should continue to develop technologies to facilitate space exploration
Exploration is a necessary precursor to colonization, and colonization is essential to survival. And colonization would have no hope of succeeding without the 1000s of tons of fissiles we just happen to possess.

The right stuff at the right time. This is no coincidence. And your endless babbling about relative economies and safety from that perspective are moot.

That's right I said moot.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
answer why nuclear is so expensive
Due to over-regulations imposed the faux-greens in order to favor the combo(intermittent renewables backed up by fossil fuels).
"Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power," wrote Sierra Club's President in a 1974 memo to the board of directors, "will supply a rationale for increasing regulation and add to the cost of the industry."
"Nuclear fission passes the EROEI test with flying colours but remains costly because of ornate regulation."
"The entire system of regulating nuclear plants is based on a wholesale scientific fraud — one which only a handful of people has ever heard about"
Even so:
"France gets >75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. One of the cleanest grids in the world. €0.18/kWh Germany has windmills and coal. €0.30/kWh"
Japan:
nuclear 10.1¥/kwh
wind 21.9¥/kwh
solar 24.3¥/kwh
https://www.bloom...m-within
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Imagine trying to divert 1/3 of western economies NOW to develop the stockpiles of fissiles we now possess, without the impetus of the cold war.

Nuke weapons have proven so easy to produce that western powers would have no defense against rogue nations, if we didn't already possess an overwhelming superiority in retaliatory capability.

We will need ALL the fissiles we possess in order to establish the equivalent of the oceanic trade system among the colonies in the 1500s. It was an imperative then and it is an imperative now.

And obviously this reality had occurred to the people who had the foresight, power, and authority to get it done... which is WHY the nuclear industry now exists.
carbon_unit
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
Offshore wind is generally steadier than inland locations, right? Seems to me that a good location would be North Carolina's Pamlico and Albermarle Sounds, large, shallow inland seas separated and protected from the Atlantic by the Outer Banks. (This seems more "mid-Atlantic" than NJ.) Perhaps reverse pumped storage "energy islands" could be tried: Wall off a suitable area in the sound and dredge it deeper. Use excess wind power to pump water out. When power demand is high, refill the lagoons via generators.
https://www.techn...-energy/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
Solar and wind are cheap
"Batteries never included" neither fossil-fueled backup plants nor integration costs.
"If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?" - Apr 2018
https://www.forbe...pensive/
https://www.forbe...reasons/
...how much it costs to decommission...
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product."
"If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?" - May 2018
"Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals.."
https://www.forbe...c-waste/
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
The real world is telling us that smart money goes with renewables...
Indeed, smart money goes with renewables, it's the best way of keeping expansion of the natural gas/fracking industry.
"Wind turbines. Built with fossil fuels, operated with fossil fuels and backed up with fossil fuels. The only green thing about them is the ignorance of those who support them."
"Would you be surprised to learn that the oil and natural gas companies are perfectly aware that solar and wind lock-in their main product? That's why they are only all too happy to invest in and promote solar and wind."
https://www.forbe...pensive/
"If nuclear is not the answer, then renewables are even farther away from being the answer. If you oppose nuclear then you are wittingly or unwittingly supporting coal and natural gas producers."
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
Offshore wind is generally steadier...
"Even Vesta's Offshore Wind Division Founding Chairman compares to offshore wind turbines to an "old crappy car"."
https://pbs.twimg...D9UO.jpg
"Electricity produced by onshore wind costs twice as much as conventional gas-fired electricity generation; offshore wind three times as much. The only reason the wind industry is viable is because of the massive subsidies it receives. Subsidies raised silently from your energy bill."
http://www.dailym...ick.html
"Wind farm blades eroding after few years at sea" - Mar 12, 2018
http://www.itv.co...-at-sea/
https://www.theti...dv76g7cm

"Offshore wind? Wind off? Sure."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2018
otto
And your endless babbling about relative economies and safety from that perspective are moot
Perhaps moot to you. You don't really support that assertion - but that is pretty typical of your style. Say something outlandish - but provide no reasoning or support for your rubbish. I don't see it as moot at all to be discussing the current situation in the world - in which we are making a transition from fossil fuels - to newer energy sources. I hope that includes nukes - but you and I probably have about the same influence on the course of global events. Here's a neat article on how Australia is looking on end coal use, and generate around 90% of their electricity from renewables by 2050. Of course - if you have nothing of any substance to add - feel free to sit out the conversation...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
but provide no reasoning or support for your rubbish
But I did.

"colonization would have no hope of succeeding without the 1000s of tons of fissiles we just happen to possess."

-This is what is known as a very_good_reason.

Just declaring something is invalid does not make it so. Simply ignoring it does not invalidate it. Inability to recognize it as a very_good_reason is something else entirely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
Australia is looking on end coal use, and generate around 90% of their electricity from renewables by 2050. Of course
-Of course. We have met quotas and now have all the fissiles we need, as well as the basic infrastructure to replenish and replace older fissiles as they play out their half-lives.

And so we should expect to see the world begin to reduce the production of what is after all a pretty filthy and problematic material.

And we are.

Consider that the tech we are producing in response to the dire AGW threat... more efficient solar, fusion, batteries and other advanced storage media, computers... are also directly applicable for use in space and on other worlds.

Lord knows we wouldn't need all that stuff here if pops were allowed to shrink to a more sustainable state.

Do we really need to fly cross country to vacation or do business? Do we really need to design buildings in 3D?

This world will be a much saner place once we colonize mars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
-and reduce the impactor threat. Another reason for this century-long Manhattan project to become an interworld, space-faring species.
PTTG
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Methinks WillieWard doth protest too much. I'm pretty sure his whole modus operandi is to be the most absurd caricature of the pro-nuclear movement with the goal of discrediting it entirely.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
Otto
But I did
You said this
Why we have nuclear power is ALWAYS the subject at hand
Which of course is blatant rubbish - and untrue. Our conversation was not about that.....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
...we are making a transition from fossil fuels - to newer energy sources.
Doubly Wrong.
"In 1998, coal represented 38% of global power generation. In 2017, it represented ... 38% of global power generation."
https://www.vox.c...e-change
"Most people think of solar and wind as new energy sources. In fact, they are two of our oldest."
July 20th 1891: New York Times: "Solar Energy would drive all the steam engines in the World".
https://uploads.d...97b6.jpg
https://uploads.d...eac3.jpg
https://uploads.d...59a5.jpg
https://uploads.d...c6fc.jpg

Methinks wind/solar supporters are scammers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
Hey did you guys ever hear of this?

"One reason scientists proposed use of wind power on Mars is that wind turbines still could generate electricity during month-long martian global dust storms that can make days on the red planet as dark as night. "Wind power and solar power may complement each other on Mars."
https://www.nasa....2AR.html

-Yes that's right, NASA. They do know this green stuff will never replace nukes up there which is why

"NASA and DOE officials announced the completion of successful ground tests of the experimental reactor, called the Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY)..."

-and because, well, nothing is green on mars. Except of course certain minerals such as olivine and peridotite and beryl and perhaps even moldavite and so forth. But all would be covered in red dust.

It is good to have backup tho. And I suppose wind power would work well on venus and titan and the clouds of Jupiter etcetc.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2018
@WillieWard; you do make a very good argument about the usefulness of compact energy. like the USS Nimitz-class SUPERCARRIER example. Of course that is a war machine designed for it's tasks and duties. A solar power aircraft carrier may be stretching it a bit much, but you know what? If you turn the deck of the aircraft carrier into some high efficiency solar panels that can act as a landing strip ... yeah one can certainly move that ship across oceans with the caveat being your crew would have to live in an ultra low energy use environment (like space people do).

Yeah Solar powered aircraft carriers are certainly doable.

howhot3
not rated yet Jun 21, 2018
You know what @Ghosty... I never thought about windmills on Mars, but wow, what an engineering challenge that would be. The only thing that blows on Mars is CO2 and it's not very dense (almost zero atmospheric pressure) and the wind velocities can get very high but carry little energy. Wow.

When you consider the inertia of windmill propeller to start rotation and the sustained winds to keep such a mass in motion on Mars, just computing the propeller length is a tricky problem. So how high would you have to build a windmill on Mars to generate a normalized X watts/hr?

Good question @Ghosty.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
Willie Ward
Doubly wrong
- that was in response to the assertion that we are transitioning to newer energy sources.

So from Willie's own ref.
Renewables continued their gangbusters growth
and
many of the structural forces shaping the energy transition continued, particularly robust growth in renewables and natural gas." Year-to-year fluctuations are less important than those bigger trends
So your link supports the idea that we are in an energy 'transition'- (their word). I agree that the lock grip of fossil fuels is doing everything it can to thwart that transition. When you start from a tiny %, it takes hundreds of years to overwhelm such a massive system. It is happening - yes wish it was faster. Lying does not help things.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
...A solar power aircraft carrier may be stretching it a bit much, but you know what? If you turn the deck of the aircraft carrier into some high efficiency solar panels that can act as a landing strip ...
Yeah Solar powered aircraft carriers are certainly doable.
Renewable Cultists don't understand math and economics and hate physics and science.
Notice if solar/wind had enough energy density, Greenpeace would already be using it instead of DIESEL to generate electricity to power their ships and inflatable motorboats across the oceans.
Remember windmills and sails were replaced centuries ago by steam engines because they are weak/intermittent/unreliable. Solar is equally weak/intermittent/unreliable.
https://pbs.twimg...N3ho.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uKGt.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Ql6L.jpg

WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
..robust growth in renewables and natural gas..
Intermittent renewables are growing in installed-capacity and natural gas in energy produced thanks to "greenwashing" provided by wind/solar; e.g. Germany, with an amazing ~100gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar enough to replace hard coal or lignite coal, will have to replace coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄): 86x worse than CO₂) to symbolically reduce CO₂ emissions.
https://uploads.d...bd51.jpg

Just remember all those "amazing ~100gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar" is to become a bunch of junk in few years.
"Germany must prepare for "wind turbine decommissioning wave""
https://www.clean...ing-wave
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* ..."
greenonions1
4 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
Willie
Intermittent renewables are growing in installed-capacity
And they are growing in absolute energy produced. Just because you don't want to believe facts - does not make them go away. See graph on this report labeled "Electricity Generation By Fuel" - https://www.iea.o...les2017/

By 2022, global renewables electricity generation is expected to grow by over one-third to over 8 000 terrawatts per hour, equal to the total power consumption of China, India and Germany combined. As a result, the share of renewables in power generation will reach 30% in 2022, up from 24% in 2016
.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
Renewable Cultists don't understand math and economics and hate physics and science.


Willie Ward is a Cultist who does not understand math or economics, and also hates physics and science. Fixed your poorly constructed sentence for you Willie.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
And they are growing in absolute energy produced. Just because you don't want to believe facts...
I know, I believe facts, they are growing in capacity additions to provide "greenwash" for gas/fracking, at cost of trillions of dollars, destruction of natural landscapes/wildlife habitats, massacre of millions of birds and other endangered species.
What about the emissions? Carbon-free nuclear power has done much more with much less money and in much less time, e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario.
"Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat" - Nov 2017
https://www.nytim...les.html
https://www.thegu...-warning

"The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). Nuclear makes up 5%, with 14% from renewables. Solar panels and wind turbines contribute 0.8%."
Renewable Cultists do not understand math or economics, and also hates physics and science.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
I know, I believe facts
No you don't. You prove that by constantly needing to lie. Asserting that renewables are only growing in terms of capacity, but not in terms of power produced. That is a lie. If you understood facts - you would not need to lie. That is the hallmark of a cultist. So from your Hansen article
The solution isn't complicated, it's not rocket science," Hansen said. "Emissions aren't going to go down if the cost of fossil fuels isn't honest
See - Hansen understands the problem. Breaking the lock grip of fossil fuels is close to impossible. There are $4 trillion of investment tied up in carbon. The problem is not renewables - or nukes. Both offer the solution - if we break the grip of fossils. You do no one any favors by lying, and not understanding the facts. Do yourself a favor - and go back to school.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2018
The problem is not renewables...
"Every green initiative has been a disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...WGin.jpg

Cats don't kill eagles, but wind bird-choppers kill cats.
"Wind farm 'could wipe out a third of wildcats'" - June 21, 2018
"Scottish wildcats are facing extinction after it emerged that 30 per cent of the species could be wiped out by a wind farm expansion."
https://www.scots...-4757611
https://pbs.twimg...dCXZ.jpg
https://www.chang...h-forest
"Germany's Wind Farms Are Ticking Time Bombs, A 'Significant Danger' To Environment!" - June 22, 2018
https://climatech...ent/amp/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2018
"An offshore wind farm can cost can cost nearly triple that of a onshore project, according to the International Energy Agency." - June 22, 2018
https://www.houst...5718.php
...forces shaping the energy transition ... robust growth in renewables and natural gas...
"Methane leaks offset much of the climate change benefits of natural gas, study says" - June 21, 2018
"Though half of methane vanishes in 8.3 years, the Environmental Defense Fund says it is still 84 times as powerful as carbon dioxide over 20 years."
https://www.washi...ory.html

"South Australian wind empire doing nothing for 3rd day in a row! Consumers in SA pay for that nothing! Gas power generation to the rescue again!"
https://pbs.twimg...bRpo.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2018
Every green initiative has been a disaster

One in five Australian homes now generate their own renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions through rooftop solar
Seems like a success to me.

https://renewecon...a-40492/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
Seems like a success to me.
"Despite ~ $2,400 Billion Investments in renewables , the World has made NO PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector in 32 years. "
http://euanmearns...issions/
"$2 Trillion spent on wind, solar over past decade, but they account for 0.8% of total global primary energy consumption. Renewables as a whole account for just 3.6%. Pink batts and school halls on steroids. Only winners are renewbles lobbyists. The losers are the world's poor."
https://pbs.twimg...wlKZ.jpg
"Is Renewable Energy Making A Difference? Carbon Emissions Rise Despite Record Solar And Wind" - 06/19/2018
http://dailycalle...issions/

' "Climate action" = the biggest scam ever conceived by the human mind. '
https://pbs.twimg...NphQ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...9eur.jpg
greenonions1
not rated yet Jun 25, 2018
Despite ~ $2,400 Billion Investments in renewables , the World has made NO PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector in 32 years


And the world has spent trillions on nukes too right? And made NO PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector. Except that is not true. Every kilowatt generated by carbon free power - is a kilowatt not generated by fossil fuels. So given that about 40% of global electricity is now generated by nuclear and renewables - your quote is total bullshit. 40% of our electricity sector is now carbon free. What would you do Willie - just give up and stop trying to make progress? That about sums up your stupid mis-quotes. You are saying - "Oh we have not stopped all carbon emissions, therefor we should give up, and stop trying....https://www.iea.o...016.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power has made an amazing PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector e.g. France, Sweden, Ontario; if it has stopped, it's thanks to antinuclear faux-greens that prefer coal/oil/gas as backup for intermittent renewables.Well, if you have carbon-free nuclear energy, wind/solar are unnecessary, they are only needed to provide "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas industries in order to displace carbon-free nuclear.
Every kilowatt generated by carbon free power - is a kilowatt not generated by fossil fuels.
A more correct statement would be:
Every kilowatt generated by wind/solar needs to be backed up by a kilowatt from fossil fuels.
And the result is clear: no meaningful CO₂ reduction.
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
greenonions1
not rated yet Jun 25, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power has made an amazing PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector
And given that renewables produce as much electricity as nukes - you contradict yourself don't you? The logic is probably over Willies head. Either we have made progress towards decarbonizing power, or we have not. If we have - then both renewables and nukes deserve credit - as they produce about equal amounts of electricity. Shame Wille can't do logic.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
...given that renewables produce as much electricity as nukes...
Again renewable cultists lie to themselves, believe in their own lies, like animals that eat their own feces: "...renewable sources, the vast majority ... is just people ...burning wood...and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
https://pbs.twimg...ayq4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...dWLa.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uWMm.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...uH36.jpg
"The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). Nuclear makes up 5%, with 14% from renewables. Solar panels and wind turbines contribute 0.8%."
"When you hear 14% renewables ... The biggest contributor is humanity's oldest fuel: wood."
"4.91% is known as biomass as we also burn food (ethanol) and energy forest (trees or woody shrubs) in the rich world"
https://climatech...ewables/
greenonions1
not rated yet Jun 26, 2018
Renewables made up 24 percent of global electricity generation in 2014. That's expected to rise to 31 percent by 2040. Most of the increase will likely come from wind and hydropower.


You notice Willie pushes his lies - but does not provide links - so you can actually check the facts. Willie doesn't like facts - so as always reverts to being a potty mouth - with no facts to support the trash talk. https://www.c2es....-energy/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2018
Destroying natural landscapes and wildlife habitats for nothing except to provide "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas industries.
"Right on cue, Al Gore throws Germany under the bus"
"Once a Climate Leader, Germany Risks Being 'Left Behind': Al Gore" - June 26, 2018
"In part because of Merkel's decision to end Germany's reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in Japan..." where no one was killed from radiation exposure.
https://www.nytim...ore.html

Now, the only weapon that eco-nuts have against carbon-free nuclear is imaginary fear.
"Local German politicians are leading the efforts to fear-monger against what every major scientific study says is the safest way to make reliable electricity."
"How Anti-Nuclear Ideologues Weaponize Fear" - Jun 26, 2018
https://www.forbe...r-power/
humy
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2018
Destroying natural landscapes and wildlife habitats for nothing except to provide "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas industries.
WillieWard

Coal/oil/gas industries destroy natural landscapes and wildlife habitats.
Just one example out of many;

https://www.scien...irginia/

You do talk a load of crap.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Coal/oil/gas industries destroy natural landscapes and wildlife habitats
As if wind/solar were alternative to coal/oil/gas. Intermittent renewables requires tons of fossil fuels to be manufactured/mined/transported/installed/repaired/recycled and to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.
https://pbs.twimg...ED3S.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...i278.jpg
"It should be obvious that wind turbines are not manufactured in wind-powered factories, nor are solar panels assembled in sun-powered workshops. But proponents of renewable energy sources never talk about the carbon footprints of manufacturing, distributing and installing the equipment needed to use them. And no one, to our knowledge, has figured out how to dispose of solar panels safely once their useful lives end—they can't just be dumped in the local landfill."
http://www.inside...u-think/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2018
...expected to rise to 31 percent by 2040. Most of the increase will likely come from wind and hydropower.
Delusional Greentards love to talk about the future of renewables(utopia, "Green's unicorn fairy fantasy"), but avoid to talk about the present: with a spectacularly outstanding hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, intermittent renewables are an epic failure at reducing emissions.

But they don't care about emissions, their ideology/utopia is more important than the environment and Climate Change:
"A carbon tax will kill renewable deployment because it will increase the price of natural gas which is a backup for RE. But it will make nuclear power immediately profitable. This is why a lot of "greens" are really against it deep in their hearts."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
but avoid to talk about the present
I talk about the present all the time. I talk about how Oklahoma gets 30% of it's electricity from renewables (mostly wind) and has some of the cheapest electricity costs in the world. I read every day about the gigawatts of renewables that are being installed around the world. I talk about how 1/4 of Australian homes now have solar panels. BUT - we also project into the future. We have never been at a moment in history where the cost curves are not only converging, but crossing. Wind and solar are going to keep getting cheaper - and so projections are that they will become the default for new power installation. Potty mouths who don't keep up with the news - just know how to lie. Guess what Willie? You lie, and people call you a liar. How about them apples?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2018
I talk about how Oklahoma gets 30% of it's electricity from renewables (mostly wind)...
Oklahoma grid is dirty, wind is only serving as greenwashing for cheap gas/fracking.
https://uploads.d...55ff.png

Wind/solar are a waste of time, money, and ecological resources, in the fight against Climate Change.
"Nuclear energy to remain key for France -finance minister Le Maire" - June 26, 2018
"Nuclear energy remain essential to guarantee France's competitiveness, security and energy independence over the long term. We can be proud of our nuclear industry," Le Maire said
https://www.reute...8N1TS2OD
"The Greens are no longer anti-nuclear...in Finland!" - June 26, 2018
http://environmen...inland-1
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2018
Oklahoma grid is dirty, wind is only serving as greenwashing for cheap gas/fracking
You just keep moving the goal posts don't you? We were talking about how renewable energy affects cost. And I was showing you up to be a liar - because Oklahoma gets 30% of its electricity from renewables, and has very cheap electricity. Well wind energy increased by 13% in 2017, and is now producing more power than coal. Nationally wind increased by 9%. But you said I don't talk about the present. The transition is happening Willie - you just hate facts. http://www.tulsaw...727.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2018
Oklahoma ... has very cheap electricity...
...wind... is now producing more power than coal.
And cheap natural gas has nothing do with it.
Ban coal and gas, increase installed-capacity of wind/solar, and let's if sunshine&breeze unicorn energy can power Oklahoma and if electricity prices remain low without cheap/abundant coal/gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
greenonions1
not rated yet Jun 29, 2018
And cheap natural gas has nothing do with it.
Cheap natural gas had nothing to do with the fact that Oklahoma gets around 1/3 of its electricity from the wind. Why ever would you suggest such a thing? Also as I showed you - a 17% increase in wind power in 2017, and the U.S. overall had a 9% increase in wind power. The transition is happening Willie - you are too busy posting cultist rubbish to keep up with the facts.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2018
The transition is happening...
Gigawatts and gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar around the world and you have only Oklahoma(a gas producer state) as showcase.
"Countries pushing Renewable Energy have the highest electricity rates in the world, with little to no CO2 reduction."
https://pbs.twimg...i4V2.jpg
"RWE CFO Sees Higher German Power Prices as Merkel Scraps Nuclear" - June 14, 2018
https://news.bloo...-nuclear
"You hear sometimes that renewables lock in gas-powered backup. The Norwegians are at least honest about it (picture taken at Brussels airport)."
https://pbs.twimg...ODVl.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2018
Gigawatts and gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar around the world and you have only Oklahoma(a gas producer state) as showcase
I use Oklahoma as an example. Here are 11 more countries you could spend a few hours on if you want. I am sure you can find articles in Breitbart, Daily Caller, Wattsup etc. that disparage all the progress going on around the world - after all - you know so much more than everyone else. https://www.clima...-energy/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2018
Here are 11 more countries..
https://www.clima...-energy/

1. SWEDEN
- powered mostly by hydro & nuclear, wind is on vacation in this moment
https://uploads.d...1247.jpg
2. COSTA RICA
- 78% Hydro, 10% Wind, 10% Geo.
3. NICARAGUA
- mostly on oil
4. SCOTLAND
- connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'" - Jun 2018
https://stopthese...ig-calm/
5. GERMANY
- trillion euro fiasco at reducing emissions and one of most expensive electricity in Europe
6. URUGUAY
- mostly Hydro, wind is almost nothing
7. DENMARK
- same as Germany, expensive electricity bills and one of dirtiest grid in Europe
8. CHINA
- betting on nuclear
...

Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest.
greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 01, 2018
Wind/solar cultists are so dishonest
I support renewables and nuclear power - pointed that out to you a thousand times. I do understand facts. The world is embarking on a major energy shift to non carbon fuel. It is going to take decades. All 11 of those countries are examples of the work being done - while liars and potty mouths like yourself are busy telling the tide to go back. Hey look - coal plants retiring under the trump admin - where is that 'clean coal renaissance.' Two liars - like peas in a pod...https://cleantech...tration/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2018
I support renewables and nuclear power...
You are a hypocritical, a gas/fracking lobbyist travestied as climate warrior, not so different from Al Gore, DiCaprio, Greenpeace and other faux-greens that travel around the world aboard their fossil-fueled ships, jets and luxury cars, claiming wind/solar is cheap and replaces fossil fuels, and that carbon-free nuclear energy is unnecessary in the fight against Climate Change.
"Renewable energy promoters and advocates know that solar and wind depend on natural gas as back-up and are working with the American Petroleum Institute, Sierra Club and EDF to shut down nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania."
"by promoting renewables you are actually promoting natural gas plants."

"If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, become a nuclear promoter. If all you want is money then become a solar / wind promoter."
https://pbs.twimg...lFMG.jpg
greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 02, 2018
that carbon-free nuclear energy is unnecessary in the fight against Climate Change
Show me one quote where I have ever said such a thing. Just one. You are a liar. I absolutely acknowledge that nuclear is a low carbon source of energy. If I were king - we would be building a lot of nukes, and a lot of renewables. We need to decarbonize as fast as we can, if we care about climate change. We need to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can. My point over and over - is that reality seems to be showing us that nukes are expensive. If we choose to develop nukes - we have to be willing to be honest about the cost - and not a fat liar like you are. I am not a hypocrite - I just understand the facts on the ground a lot better than you do - and am not a potty mouthed liar...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2018
My point over and over - is that reality seems to be showing us that nukes are expensive...
...we have to be willing to be honest about the cost - and not a fat liar like you are. I am not a hypocrite...
By stating "3 - 8 cents for wind and solar", not including batteries/storage / coal/gas-fired backup plants, makes you a big fat liar, dishonest and hypocritical.

"Nuclear Energy Is a Fast and Inexpensive Way to Improve the World" - Dec 11, 2017
https://thoughtsc...e-world/
"Nuclear Energy Is the Fastest and Lowest-Cost Clean Energy Solution" - Nov 27, 2017
https://thoughtsc...olution/
"Reducing the costs of nuclear energy in three steps" - April 30, 2018
http://energypost...al-path/
greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 03, 2018
By stating "3 - 8 cents for wind and solar", not including batteries/storage / coal/gas-fired backup plants, makes you a big fat liar, dishonest and hypocritical
No it doesn't - https://thinkprog...b91a543/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2018
Again:
The best you can do is citing a propagandist article that is hard to be confirmed if it's true/false, probably false as most of "100% renewable" propaganda, up to now 100% scams, wrapped in hidden subsidies/tax credits etc.

Batteries calculations:
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/

Yes, another solar/wind+batteries scam is going belly up.
"Tesla Moves To Close A Dozen SolarCity Facilities Across 9 States" - Jun 29, 2018
https://cleantech...-states/
"Tesla's Constant Turmoil Can't Hide The Fact That SolarCity Is Dying" - Jun 22, 2018
https://www.forbe...s-dying/

Solar/wind scams never end.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
Willie
The best you can do is citing a propagandist article that is hard to be confirmed if it's true/false, probably false as most of "100% renewable" propaganda, up to now 100% scams, wrapped in hidden subsidies/tax credits etc
Total gibberish.

The cost of wind/solar/batteries continues it's downward fall. There is information everywhere to validate that reality. If you don't like one source - you can find 100 more. Beats your quoting Breitbart all the time.

Try BNEF - https://about.bne...outlook/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2018
There is information everywhere to validate that reality.
"New Science magazine article shows how expensive current battery storage technology is. It can't enable reliable wind/solar generation." - Jun 29, 2018
http://science.sc...full.pdf
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
"WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!"
https://pbs.twimg...ShGx.jpg

Wind and solar have low ERoI, worse yet when including batteries; just fossil-addicted parasites, a distraction to keep burning fossil fuels, in no way solution to stop Climate Change.
greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 04, 2018
Yeah - because the World Wildlife Fund knows so much about energy technology.... So how come Britain had a record year for renewables in 2017?
Onshore wind generated 28.7TWh in 2017, up 37% on 2016, with offshore turbines producing 20.9TWh – an increase of 27.3% on the previous 12 months.
http://renews.biz...-record/

And the tide keeps coming in. And Willie liar sits in his deck chair - telling it to stop.

Still waiting for that cost curve on nukes Willie. Guess you really know nothing...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2018
So how come Britain had a record year for renewables in 2017?
"Unreliables" are "unreliables", you cannot rely on them, but nuclear you can.
"All wind farms experience lulls from time to time. In Britain, turbines produced almost no electricity for more than a week at the start of this month. The U.K. also is due to have fewer breezes in the coming days than it did this week." - Jun 22, 2018
https://www.bloom...s-europe
"British reliance on French energy increases by more than quarter" - Jun 2018
https://www.teleg...-quarter
"Wind Power: World's Greatest Joke – UK Left Powerless During the 'Big Calm'" - Jun 2018
https://stopthese...ig-calm/
"Wind Drought in Britain Leaves Turbines at a Standstill"
greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 04, 2018
Unreliables" are "unreliables", you cannot rely on them
You can rely on the system as a whole. This is why countries all over the world are building out their renewables - and closing down old polluters like coal.

Still waiting for that cost curve on nukes. How about a source for saying that all energy sources had an inverse relationship between environmental cost and energy density. Come on Willie - where is the support? Oh that's right - there isn't any....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power is worth the price as the only scalable way to stop Climate Change. Wind and solar are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, and hydro/geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited) and biomass is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse gases and competes with agriculture.
...closing down old polluters like coal...
Old coal plants are being replaced by new ones but most of them replaced by natural gas(methane: worse than CO2).
Intermittent renewables are being built just to provide "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for the gas/fracking industry.
Renewable energy revolution:
https://pbs.twimg...u0Ol.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018
Old coal plants are being replaced by new ones but most of them replaced by natural gas
That is a generalization - and shows again that you do not know the subject matter. In many parts of the world - renewables are replacing fossil fuels. http://theconvers...es-94033

The trend is clear - but lying Willie does not understand it... The energy sector is playing the long game. Too long for you brain cells to understand.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2018
In many parts of the world - renewables are replacing fossil fuels.
Intermittent renewables are not replacing fossil fuels, they are just providing "greenwashing" for fossil fuels in order to displace carbon-free nuclear, a disservice in fight against Climate Change.
"In 1998, coal represented 38% of global power generation. In 2017, it represented ... 38% of global power generation." and natural gas(methane/fracking) is growing.
https://www.vox.c...e-change
"Despite ~ $2,400 Billion Investments in renewables , the World has made NO PROGRESS towards decarbonising the electricity sector in 32 years. "
http://euanmearns...issions/
"Oil, natural gas and coal make up 81 percent of U.S. energy usage. Wind and solar contribute only 2.6 percent—and less than 0.5 percent of world energy consumption... "
https://www.youtu...O9oeyAJQ

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.