Addition of intermittent sources (such as solar and wind) to the system can have a net effect of actually increasing the fossil fuel consumption by forcing the fossil fuel power sources to be operated in less efficient modes.
Another word deserved emphasis there, imo, so I added it.
Can does not mean
does. Can anyone here cite solid evidence that this "can" ends up meaning that wind power or PV do not end up, in net effect, significantly draining CO2 emissions? And for the record, that the trucks, cars and other automotive equipment needed to install and maintain wind and PV farms
now run on fossil fuels does not mean that they always will. It's a weak objection, imo, that these secondary CO2 emissions are
now a detraction from the greenhouse emission sink, relative to alternatives, that PV and wind are.
It would, with due respect, be a benefit to the conversation if wind power opponents, and PV opponents, for that matter, rather than stating this or that concern, at the margins, about their alleged secondary CO2 impacts, would lay their cards on the table, to wit:
1. Do you favor coal, natural gas and petroleum sources of energy, or nukes, to wind and PV? Do you somehow deny the truth that burning these carbon fuels is wrecking our climate, to unknown, large-scale detrimental effect?
- and -
2. Do you oppose large wind or PV installations
everywhere, or just near your home? Honesty here may be difficult or embarrassing, so it would particularly be courageous and appreciated.
I don't mean disrespect or disregard toward anyone, and everyone is entitled to their feelings and opinions about things. I just believe, with some background on the matter, having worked for the US Department of Energy in efficiency and renewables for a while in the '90s, that though there are significant concerns about their environmental impacts, wind and PV, where they can find a good resource base, as with wind in northern New England, are far superior to fossil fuels environmentally.
Moreover, while it is true that PV and wind receive significant subsidies, fossil fuels over their long history have received such subsidies and tax advantages and continue to do so, so IMO that objection to renewables is weak. Further, the subsidies begin to reflect that an enormous subsidy of fossil sources is that their principal waste product, CO2, is dumped into the atmosphere with no carriage of the external environmental costs imposed on us all and on all our fellow inhabitants of the planet, human and otherwise. The subsidies partially, though not entirely, level that playing field in most cases, to the best of my understanding.
So let's hear it: if yer agin wind, spell out the dimensions of your opposition. Lay your cards on the table, as I have, rather than sniping from the bushes. Come out in the open!
I, too, look forward to cars and other automobiles getting leaner and more electric and, to your point, more affordable. Here's a place where tax subsidy would be helpful - giving us an even bigger tax credit to buy cleaner cars would ramp up their production, kicking in economies of scale. Personally I regret to this day that I missed 2+ years ago, by one day, getting a great deal on a used Honda Civic 2006 hybrid which had a small bump on its nose that brought down its price a couple thousand bucks. Waiting for a check to clear, I just missed it. Have been unhappy to make due with a lesser, non-hybrid car since.
