Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

The risks of renewable energy

CO2 from fossil fuel use will kill the planet.

Well that's what we're told and most (but not all) seem to agree now that global warming (aka: climate change) is now a thing and is likely driven largely by mankind's need for energy.

Awareness of this has now seen countries turning their back on traditional energy sources such as coal, gas and oil, in favour of "renewables" such as solar, wind and hydro. These renewables have a far lower CO2 overhead than fossil fuels and with time running out to "save the planet", huge efforts are being made to transition.

Some countries, such as Germany and parts of Australia seem to almost have too much solar generation capacity and in the peak of summer there's a surplus of generation. This is causing a priority to be given to ways that this surplus can be stored for use when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

However, as recent events have highlighted, it might not be a good idea to put all your energy eggs in the renewable basket.

I'm talking about the huge effect that forest fires in Canada have had on solar energy production down the East Coast of the USA.

I have read reports that the output of solar power systems in affected areas has dropped by over 50 percent due to the clouds of smoke obscuring the sun.

Of course forest fires of this scale and duration are not particularly common, although we've been warned to expect more of them as the planet heats -- so why the concern?

Well it's not just smoke that blocks the valuable light from the sun, it's also cloud.

As the planet continues to warm we're being told that there will be more moisture in the atmosphere and that produces -- more clouds. This means that we can expect, in many areas, to see a reduction in annual sunshine-hours total which, if you're using that sunshine to create energy, means a reduced generation capacity.

But what about wind, won't that continue to blow?

Yes, but that's also going to be a problem because climate change is already proving to produce more extreme weather, a real problem for the wind-generation industry.

Whilst one might think that "more wind is better", that's far from the truth.

Wind generation systems have a limited range of wind-speeds during which they can be run efficiently -- if at all. Once the wind exceeds a particular speed the turbines must be halted and the huge blades feathered to prevent damage due to over-speeding and other mechanical stresses. Increased weather extremes mean more times when those generators are producing zero power.

Both of these factors suggest that renewables will generate less energy over the coming years as the momentum of climate change continues -- but wait, there's more!

Other natural disasters can also throw a huge spanner in the renewable energy machine.

Prolonged droughts can scuttle hydro generation and a single large volcanic erruption (like Mt Pinatubo or Mt St Helens) could significantly reduce the energy delivered by sunlight over the entire face of the globe, for months if not years.

In light of this, it might be a pretty sensible idea to keep at least a few of those old fossil-fuel or nuclear reactors going long after we might think they've become unnecessary. If mother nature throws us a curve ball, we could find that fall-back generation capacity invaluable, perhaps even a matter of life and death for some.

I wonder if anyone (other than me) has thought this through -- or am I just being ridiculously pessimistic?

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font