I grew up not far from what was then a new nuclear power plant. During the 1970s, it was the subject of numerous environmentalist protests. I can still see them with their “Hell No We Won’t Glow” placards gathering in the park to hear speakers condemn the “evils of nuclear power.”

My friend John and I rode mopeds to one of the events and, seeing a shovel and the PA system power cord side-by-side, used the former to cut the latter. A indignant hippy was silenced mid-harangue. Our escape through alleys via moped with hippies in pursuit was a chase scene worthy of a Scooby Doo music montage. Even then I knew, somehow, the envirotards were clueless.

The power plant is still there but I can’t remember the last protest. Still, the hippies were effective and environmentalists have for decades prevented any new nuclear power plants being built in this country. As a result, they have not only denied us cheap, sustainable power, they have contributed to the emission of CO2 which is the new environmentalist bugbear.

Environmentalists still don’t like nuclear power and would like us to believe that wind, solar and water power are adequate to serve the energy needs of the world. That is the cover story on the current Scientific American.

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables ( Preview )
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels.

Key Concepts

* Supplies of wind and solar energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.

* The authors’ plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.

* The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.

* Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.

Sadly, as is usually the case with global warming alarmism and environmentalist politics, there isn’t much science in the Scientific American article. At the American Spectator, William Tucker has a look at the claims made at SA.

• 900 hydroelectric dams, 1300 MW, 70 percent in place. There are only 94 dams in the whole world that produce more than 1300 MW, eleven of them in the United States. Even Glen Canyon (1296 MW) does not quite qualify. Around the world there are few dam sites left untamed. Even building 70 more dams of this size – let alone 800 — is unlikely.

• 3,800,000 windmills, 5 MW, <1 percent in place. The largest windmills now designed generate 3 MW. These are “the length of a football field,” as President Obama recently mentioned. A windmill generating 5 MW would probably be the length two football fields and stand 80 stories high. Imagine the landscape covered with 3 million these.

• 1.7 billion solar rooftop systems. With only 6 billion people in the world, there may not be enough rooftops to house all these. We’ll have to put up some more buildings just to accommodate them.

• 89,000 solar thermal and voltaic plants, 300 MW apiece. It takes about 15 square miles to generate 1000 MW with either system. There is little room for improvement, since the limits are set by the sun’s energy. That amounts 450,000 square miles, about the size of Texas and California combined. Solar mirrors and panels must be washed once a week or they collect too much dust and lose their efficiency. That’s a lot of water.

The numbers are absurd! To deploy 3.8 million windmills in 20 years means we have to deploy 521 per day starting today! Each wind turbine requires about 48 acres. That means 3.8 million turbines would cover 285,000 square miles. That is an area the size of Montana, Wyoming and Colorado combined. That doesn’t even contemplate the unimaginable distribution system!

Of course all that space isn’t appropriate for wind generation nor would environmentalists ever agree.

Tucker concludes…

Even more significant, the world of Jacobson and Delucchi would be the most colossal human intrusion into the natural world the history of the planet. It would dwarf any previous effort of civilization. We would live in a forest of 80-story windmills interrupted by rolling prairies of solar collectors. Every inch of coastline would be girdled with tidal generators while every square mile of ocean was dotted with wind and wave collectors. There would be no place on the planet not dedicated to gathering energy.

National magazines dedicate articles to fantasy while the a real, plausible nuclear solution to energy needs is ignored. I am beginning to believe that mathematics and physics are the only sciences uncorrupted by politics. It is a sad state of affairs.

Share on Facebook