Everyone has one of "those" friends. You know the type -- environmental tree hugging fanatic who can't see beyond the alternative into the problems associated with other forms of energy generation. While we all love our environment and trees since they provide oxygen for mankind to live, there is a big difference between being pragmatic about solutions and being fantastical. One friend declares without a semblance of doubt the solution to the united States energy needs is more nuclear power plants since it is the cleanest form of energy.

When bringing up Einstein's statement on nuclear energy, "that is a heck of way to boil water," the familiar "poo poo" raspberry "pfft" is uttered with a "shooing" wave of the hand. The odd silence and deer in the headlight look is instantaneous when asking, "What do you do with all the unclean, radioactive, nuclear waste that takes thousands of years to dissipate that man cannot build a container to hold nor have a facility to safely allow deterioration while preventing a worldwide radioactive disaster if a mistake is made?" So much, for their big solution.

As it turns out, solar and
wind energy production is equally in a tough situation. In order for wind and solar to meet carbon dioxide reduction needs, approximately $90 trillion will have to be invested into these alternatives. Remember, carbon dioxide is what trees and plants need for photosynthesis, what environmentalists lump into the term "greenhouse gases," and comprises only 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere consists of 78% Nitrogen, 20 - 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and trace gases, including greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, Helium, Neon, and ozone, comprise less than 1%. Doesn't anyone else think spending or investing $90 trillion dollars for reduction of gases that comprise less than one percent of the atmosphere insane?

Cost is not the only problem with solar and wind, as the Daily Caller reported 11 problems with solar and wind. The first five will be covered and the remainder in another installment.

"Power storage is incredibly expensive on a large scale"

Power has to be stored in batteries when the sun isn't out and the wind doesn't blow. Batteries to provide the average American household with electricity costs $15,000, lasts only five years, and are difficult to recycle. For a family to store energy at home, Tesla power-wall to power a home costs $7,340.00, would save the family $1.06 per day and take 25 years to recover the cost. The largest battery for storing power is found in Fairbanks, Alaska. It weighs 1,300 metric tons, is the size of a football field, provide enough power for 12,000 residents (38% of the population) for seven minutes. For short outages, this might be acceptable, but what about outages of long duration.

"The best way we have of 'storing' power is pumping water up a hill, which actually accounts for 99 percent of all global energy storage."

"The US Power grid is older, and has trouble handling solar and wind"

Today, the united States power grid works well; it's reliable, meaning blackouts are rare and large-scale blackouts very rare. The current grid is set up for the type of electrical generation we have. Relying more on solar and wind requires a greater expenditure on the grid. According to the Department of Energy, "seventy percent (70%) of the transmission lines and power transformers in the country are at least 25 years old."

For any power grid to work properly, energy demand must exactly match supply. Conventional power plants can adjust power according due to power demands being predictable. Solar and wind power cannot adjust easily; and, they provide power "unpredicatably relative to conventional power sources.

On cloudy or windless days, the electrical grid cannot provide enough power from solar or wind alone. Moreover, these sources run the potential risk for producing too much power for the grid resulting in overload and frying of the grid -- the very reason electrical companies pay consumers to take electricity.

"Rebuilding the Power Grid to accept Solar and Wind is Absurdly Expensive"

Three power grids supply the united States with power, are massive and expensive infrastructure valued at trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, the power grid cannot be replaced in a timely manner. The reasons why are mindboggling. It takes over a year to manufacture a transformer; the transformers are not interchangeable since each must be built specifically for its location. The united States is almost $19 trillion in debt. The power grid would need to be built to handle solar and wind power production, which is unfeasible considering the debt.

"Merely building a 3,000-mile network of transmission lines capable of moving power from wind-rich West Texas to market in East Texas proved to be a $6.8 billion effort that began in 2008, and still isn't entirely finished. In rebuilding the power grid infrastructure to accommodate the large amounts of solar and wind energy from the best to worst places to meet the US energy demands would incur exorbitant costs. This could cost more, many times more, than the price of "generating the energy."

"Solar and Wind Don't Provide Power At Useful Times"

Simmons states that solar is better than wind in providing electricity when electricity is being used. But, for much of the year, peak demands occur after dark. "For example, [on December 17] in California peak electricity demand was at 6pm. But peak solar was at 12:36 and by 6pm, solar production was a zero."

The demand for power is fairly predictable. Solar and wind power output is very variable over time and in general, does not coincide with peak electrical demands. When solar power is going offline in the dark, peak power demand is occurring. The power grid would become more fragile if power plants were added that only provided power during intermittent and unpredictable times.

"Solar and Wind Can't Keep the Lights On By Themselves"

Solar and wind power systems require conventional backups to provide power when they cannot. Since the output of solar and wind plants cannot be predicted with high accuracy by forecasts, grid operators have to keep excess reserve running just in case.

But natural gas, coal-fired, or nuclear plants are not simple machines. They can require days to fully turn on from a dead stop. This means that solar and wind power require conventional sources in "stand-by" mode, which means they're still generating electricity.

Despite this, environmental groups like The Sierra Club still call for "100 percent" solar and wind power.

In looking at these first five issues with solar and wind power production, it should become clear that Hussein Obama is destroying the united States electrical power grid without a proper replacement, without funds to do so, and all because of the climate change farce. Many climate change cultists will "poo poo, pffft, and raspberry" these findings. Remember, the UN IPCC admitted their "climate change" prediction models were falsified and inaccurate -- not all variables are known and can be accounted for in the process. These "models" do not meet the Scientific Method meaning the results are reproducible for any scientist repeating the experiment. Sufficient data exists to call "climate change" a farce, a ruse, and imaginary.

One is called upon to ask Hussein Obama and the federal government, "How does this administration justify closing down coal-fired electrical producing power plants without a reliable replacement at exorbitant costs based on falsified data?"

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.