Can anyone explain to me the negative aspects behind renewable energys such as wind and solar?

Question

There has been consistent talk about the pros of renewable energy source, but just to get a good understanding of the argument I would like to hear some of the negative aspects associated with this energy.

Answer 1

I support both in principle as being good ideas.  Homes that use them are off the grid and can be self-sufficient.  The drawback with them is the cost.  Without finding ways to make both of them cheaper most people can't afford to have them, so maybe that means the technology has to be changed.  Windmills wouldn't work in residential areas obviously.

Answer 2

They aren't the solution to global warming is the big one (nuclear fission is).

You can't count on them to provide power when you need it and we haven't got the energy storage technology we need to make them useful, that means that if you want to use them you have to have some kind of backup power and that backup power is usually fossil fuel (thus CO2 emitting).

EDIT: Boatman1: using nuclear for backup would be pointless as the wind turbine or solar panel would be providing no CO2 reduction and nuclear fuels are so cheap as to be insignificant compared to the capital costs of the plant, the only reasons that anyone would use wind or solar in combination with methane instead of just methane alone would be to reduce CO2 or to reduce fuel costs (which with methane can get pretty d**n high at times to the point at which having wind might actually save some money).

Land use is also a big problem (and use of land does have environmental effects) as are some of the chemicals used for production of PV cells (though with the solar industry using the waste of the IC industry it isn't really a problem with the current output).  The cost isn't a show stopper (we could afford them if they were reliable) but it does make them less desirable than competing technologies.

Even if solar and wind were 100% efficient they still wouldn't be good enough for what we need without massive improvements in energy storage technology, right now the only thing we have that works at utility scales is pumped hydro which only works where you can build a hydroelectric dam.

Now hydroelectricity and geothermal power are 'renewable' technologies that do work well (and have very good reliability) but it just so happens that they only work in certain locations (and most of the good hydro sites are taken or in national parks) so those are gone.

In the future we'll probably be able to put solar panels in orbit where it is sunny all the time and beam the power down with microwaves and I also suspect we'll have fusion but we don't have either of them now yet we need to start solving the problem now with what we have and that's nuclear fission.

Answer 3

They don't work.   for starters.

Second, the only one that might, wind,   no one wants the towers in the yard.  Do you?

Answer 4

I have attempted to find the net effect..... in terms of carbon.....that wind and solar have, but so far, have found little other than assurances in the marketing materials of companies in those business, that such systems will pay for themselves in a "reasonable" period of time.  They also claim that as the price of oil increases, such 'clean' energy will be on a par with fossil energy..... well Duhhhh.

Insofar as their carbon footprint, I'm afraid that we'll have to wait until we've bought into their products via $$Billions of taxpayer subsidies....... kinda like we did with ethanol before we finally discovered that it pollutes even MORE than regular gasoline!

I have hope upon hope that scientists will resist knee-jerking like they did with the ethanol fiasco!

Answer 5

The best solution would be to quit trying to pacify the big energy companies, tell them all to go to h---  because it will never be enough for them...they are the problem and individuals generating their own scares the c**p out of them, so they continue the propaganda wars which keep you tied to their greedy cord or hose!

The technology is there and for some the will is there so it boils down, do you just want to keep griping about energy or do something about it and that starts with number one...you!

Answer 6

Expensive, takes a lot of land to make a small amount of power, and inefficient.  Neither will work everywhere.

Answer 7

You’ve got some really lovely answers, so all I can do is summarize:

-renewable sources are “niche” solutions, because they require a heavy expenditure and produce relatively low results (Germany, with all its Wind & Solar is under 14% of the Total);

-in order to reach the same “generating results” you’d have to plaster half  of Britain with “Windmills” and “Solar panels”, thus creating another kind of “eco-garbage”;

-we need a cocktail of solutions, with renewables (wind, sun, tides, waste, animal waste, geothermic, the more the merrier) covering niche requirements, until we invent cheaper production methods;

-we need to concentrate more on “energy saving” (distribution, energy efficient buildings, co-sharing, night-generation…and so on), a major investment but very rewarding.

The creation of an integrated  Europe wide Energy Programme would be a start.

ps someone doesn't agree? Try putting a Windmill in your backgarden, or solar panels on your roof, or double glazing, energy saving light bulbs, and eco heating with the prunings of your own trees, like I have done; in other words do your bit, I've done mine.

Answer 8

The amount of power generated is small in relation to the land area required to put them in.  The propellers driving the wind turbines tend to chew up a lot of birds.  And Teddy Kennedy says they're unsightly.

As an addition to the power grid, or for someone who want to use them to augment their home power consumption they're great.  As a replacement for other large scale power sources, not so much.

Answer 9

These items do and can produce a supplement to our electricity needs, however the greatest problem is controlability. Gettting it where and when we need it. They are being built in desirable areas about as fast as possible due to government supplements intorduced by the Bush administration. However they can only be a supplement to our electricity needs.

We need Nukes to produce clean electricity. Nearly all of the electricity in France is produced by Nukes and we can too cleaner and safer than anyone.

We have created in recent years a number of natural gas fired turbine generating plants, however 22% of the greenhouse emissions come from the production of electricity.

Answer 10

Solar and wind generation have their place in a home system. For large commercial systems they are not as practical as nuclear would be because of overhead and it is not there all the time. For home use either or would be good to supplement grid power when you have wind and when you have sun. One of ny neighbors was early in to solar and has been up and running about ten years now and is on payback now with his electric bill even in summer months using central air about $15 a month which is basically what Edison charges locally just to be connected to the grid.

I am considering a small supplementary system of solar and wind just to see what results I will get for me as beyond the delivery charge my electric bill is never more than $10 a month right now and it will only go much above that if rates jump by a lot as they did after Enron.

Answer 11

The land area has NOTHING to do with it--- crops grow and cattle graze right underneath the wind turbines-- the actual issue is Congressional NON-action --- and right of way issues for the transmission towers. All of our coasts, and off shore areas are ideal, including a gigantic area down the great plains in the center of the country.

Texas already leads the nation in wind power generation-- and the megawatts will DOUBLE again during the next 2 years.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...

Solar on the other hand is still too expensive -- we need a 40% efficient solar cell. Then the return on investment will make sense. Again our wonderful Congress has done nothing to help this effort with generous tax credits and incentives. All they can do is TAX MORE and pass "light bulb" legislation.

EDIT-- and yes you still need backup generators ON-LINE for times when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Holland is a good example of the problem-- they have great wind power-- but the conventional electric plants have remained in operation. THINK-- Nuclear for backup power.

EDIT-- for BB-- I agree with you. Ethanol is a big scam--  why would we BURN our food inside a car's gasoline tank?

Answer 12

Currently, renewables aren't as efficient as fossil fuels, though that is improving all the time.

The main problem is getting the power from where it's generated to where it's needed. Currently the system isn't well set up to support that, and it's exacerbated by the fact that the best wind regions are often either comparatively sparsely populated (the Great Plains) or offshore.

I'm not so concerned about the land use issues as others, because solar can be put on roofs and similar and wind turbines actually fit well with livestock operations and other agricultural pursuits, among other things, so it's not like the land would ONLY have turbines on it. The bird problem has already been mostly overcome with newer turbine design and better plant siting.

A few links:

http://www.awea.org/

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds...

http://www.windustry.com/

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

http://www.nativeenergy.com/

Answer 13

Consider that fossil fuels are renewable . Plants have recycled CO2 to O2 and the plants keep the C. Later the C is converted into oil & gas, The plants produced the present supply of fuel and will continue for a few million years.

Answer 14

My old Granny is an enthusiastic yachtswoman.

But her poor,old arms get tired out with trying to communicate in semaphore with these wind-turbines!

Answer 15

Yes, I believe I can.

Both solar and wind are safe environmentally low impact electrical production methods which produce no pollution.

Oh...you wanted the down side?

Well, they both cut into the electrical companies profit margins! We can't have that now can we? Why, if people figure out the can create their own electricity cheaper than they can buy it the electrical companies would be limited to industrial production only. Nope...definitely can't allow that!

Answer 16

The most negative aspect I can think of is that you cannot efficiently store Wind & Solar power.

Both Wind and Solar are "getting" more efficient.

Wind turbines spin and uses bearings & generators which can wear out.

Solar Panels typically lose a efficiency over time normally 30 years of useful life.

Batteries are not 100% efficient, so the power is better off being sent for immediate use.

That is one advantage to Coal, Oil & Natural gas is that you can store these and burn them later.  They are potential energy waiting to be used.

I am not saying we shouldn't look into everything possible, just the facts as I know them or think I know them.

Answer 17

Solar works well- its just expensive to set up and it delivers low power source.

Wind works much better- but its also expensive to set up and you MUST live where there is an abundance of wind. The Central USA is a good spot to be in for wind power. The Eastern 1/3 and Western 1/3 is not.

Answer 18

I am working on a project at present for energy independence by 2020 and my company is dedicated to providing scientific solutions to complex problems.  So I think I'm pretty qualified to answer your question.  Some of the cons for solar and wind are the following.  When it comes to solar, there are a great deal of cons especially with the old systems made of silicon.  Silicon is expensive and making solar panels made from them is expensive as well.  They are large in size and they produce little power.  Wind has a similar problem with power production.  Sufficient power with wind can be generated, but I'm talking about the stories high type of windmill that cost a LOT of money to build, install, and maintain.

To be fair, though, I would encourage you to view the three websites below, the first two being about solar.  raw-solar and nanosolar are absolutely incredible when it comes to power generation from solar.  In my opinion, the systems made by BP Solar, an oil company, are nothing more than a gimmick with systems that cost a lot, produce little power, and are made from silicon.  That's a con for you...

Answer 19

The biggest problem is this: they don't create enough energy to keep America going. Have you ever had a solar-powered calculator? I had one, and the numbers were hard to read, and it was always dying on me. Even if it did work, that's about the extent of how big a device solar power would, well, power. As for wind power, you would have to build these huge metal windmills everywhere, which cast a considerable blemish on the beauty of the environment. Even with these giant windmills that LOOK impressive, you still have to ask, "why?" You cannot run a nation on the power of the wind, no matter how wonderful it would be. There's just not enough there to sustain a nation, or even part of a nation.

Also, what about the expense? I know oil is ridiculously expensive right now, but it can't be much better than metal for wind power and the technology that goes into solar panels. It's just not worth it people.

The best thing to do would be drill in Alaska if we want to reduce our dependency on foreign oils.