If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power. The pattern is similar if 1MW of gas-fired capacity is displaced instead of coal. And all this assumes a carbon price of $50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.
h/t Don B.
Aside from the oblique dishonesty in promoting inefficient, costly energy, there is the primary lie about the justification for this waste of money and resources – the “carbon bogy man” has been amply proven to be the delusion of hair trigger hysterics – the only segment of society hanging on to this useful myth are hard core racketeers and self enriching politicos. Boil the tar.
I would like to now where I can buy coal at $10/tonne.
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
Common sense and efficiency notwithstanding, our silly public over-reacts when reactors are concerned. Things just aren’t dark enough and cold enough…yet…
yes boil the tar and don’t forget to pluck the chickens!
There is no need to reduce CO2 “emissions”.
Just when you thought such a stance would be impossible, you have this (Nov 2013):
“Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.”
and this:
“Selling nuclear energy to environmentalists is a tough pitch. Hansen acknowledged that many of them won’t easily buy into it. Parts of the community operate like “a religion of sorts, which makes it very difficult,” Hansen said. “They’re not all objectively looking at the pros and cons.”
Gotta love the “religion of sorts” part………
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html
Yepper! Cheers;
Carbon.
Ha ha. The Economist turning sour on green energy….don’t believe a single word of it.
Even the mighty Economist is not immune to technical illiteracy, as the phrase “1MW per year of power” is gibberish. This is a very common affliction with the MSM.
If they do not understand energy, do they have a right to express opinions about it?
Mercury in the global ocean: three times more mercury in upper ocean since the Industrial Revolution
…the ocean contains about 60,000 to 80,000 tons of pollution mercury. In addition, they found that ocean waters shallower than about 100 m (300 feet) have tripled in mercury concentration since the Industrial Revolution and that the ocean as a whole has shown an increase of roughly 10 percent over pre-industrial mercury levels.
“With the increases we’ve seen in the recent past, the next 50 years could very well add the same amount we’ve seen in the past 150,” said Lamborg. “The trouble is, we don’t know what it all means for fish and marine mammals. It likely means some fish also contain at least three times more mercury than 150 years ago, but it could be more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140806134521.htm