The climate alarmists are not only trying to argue that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and human-caused emissions should be controlled and reduced rather than the miracle molecule that makes life on Earth possible. They are also trying to get others to pay the extremely high costs of rebuilding and replacing the non-“renewable” plus hydro parts of the current electric power generating system.
They put forward the claim that it is necessary to avoid catastrophic increases in global temperatures, but never really consider the lack of actual benefits and the huge costs involved. Fossil fuel and nuclear electric generating units are generally built for many years of operation and are very expensive to replace or modify. Replacement should not be undertaken unless the operating costs of the replacement are less than the operating costs of the plant replaced since it can have huge effects on the cost and reliability of the electricity so vital to our civilization.
Unfortunately, the alarmists do not seem to understand electric power systems any better than they do climate. Yet many people fail to understand the expensive havoc that the alarmists can do to the economy and the electric supply system in particular. If the climate alarmists have their way on these issues the result may well be very expensive for our civilization, as it is already in some “green” Western European nations, some Canadian provinces, and South Australia. A recent study supports this. A more readable summary can be found here.
This study shows that rather than being less expensive because of “free” solar and wind “fuel,” alternative electric power systems emphasizing “renewable” power sources and deemphasizing fossil fuel, hydro, and nuclear plants would be much more expensive and much less reliable than the current system. The alternative would results in little or no reduction in electric sector carbon dioxide emissions because the carbon dioxide emissions profile of prematurely retired power supply resources is less than or equal to the emissions profile of the replacement power resources. Unfortunately, the alternative system closely resembles what the climate alarmists and state governments favoring climate alarmism now propose. Happily, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to repeal their requirements for such alternative power systems (their so-called Clean Power Plan).
The objective of restructuring the electric power supply system should be to minimize the cost of electric power to users and maximize its reliability since there is no environmental advantage of wind and solar electric power sources (as discussed in numerous previous posts), and many environmental and economic disadvantages.
Thank you for your comment and the link which I shall look up at once.
You write: “… there is no environmental advantage of wind and solar electric power sources (as discussed in numerous previous posts), and many environmental and economic disadvantages.” I am very interested in this topic. May I ask you to link one or two articles in which you expand on the topic.
Comment by Alan Carlin: My most important post on this topic can be found here, but many other posts deal with it. This post discusses a report that shows that increases in carbon dioxide have no significant effects on global temperatures. The major advantage claimed for wind and solar is that they do not result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, but according to the study this of no significance. Wind and solar both have significant adverse environmental effects. Both kill large number of birds each year; solar also results in significant toxic contamination.
A lot of electricity was generated with hydro power in Japan during the first half of the 20th century. Hydropower has been important within China as well. The first municipal street lights in the United States were at Buffalo, owing to electricity from nearby Niagara Falls. The industrial revolution in Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries likely harnessed water power.
Hydro electricity is probably under appreciated in the US nowadays. Maybe there are Eco regulatory barriers to new projects?