Advancing Africa Assets not Liabilities Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Number Big Picture Big Society British Sea Power Burning Money Climate Change Coal Hell Delay and Deny Design Matters Direction of Travel Divide & Rule Efficiency is King Electrificandum Energy Change Energy Denial Energy Insecurity Energy Nix Energy Revival Energy Socialism Engineering Marvel Foreign Interference Fossilised Fuels Fuel Poverty Global Warming Green Investment Green Power Growth Paradigm Health Impacts Hide the Incline Human Nurture Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Money Sings National Energy National Power National Socialism No Blood For Oil Not In My Name Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Oil Change Optimistic Generation Paradigm Shapeshifter Peace not War Peak Coal Peak Emissions Petrolheads Policy Warfare Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Renewable Resource Resource Wards Science Rules Social Capital Social Democracy Solar Sunrise Solution City Stirring Stuff Stop War Sustainable Deferment Technofix The Data The Power of Intention The War on Error Toxic Hazard Wasted Resource Western Hedge Wind of Fortune

Open Letter to Renewable Energy Deniers

To all Renewable Energy Deniers,

Things are getting so much better with renewable energy engineering and deployment – why do you continue to think it’s useless ?

We admit that, at the start, energy conversion efficiencies were low, wind turbine noise was significant, kit was expensive. Not now. Wind and solar farms have been built, data collected and research published. Design modifications have improved performance.

Modelling has helped integrate renewable energy into the grids. As renewable energy technologies have been deployed at scale, and improvements and adjustments have been made, and electricity grid networks have adapted to respond to the variable nature of the wind and the sunshine, we know, and we can show you, that renewable energy is working.

It’s not really clear what motivates you to dismiss renewable energy. Maybe it’s because you’re instinctively opposed to anything that looks like it comes from an “envionmentalist” perspective.

Maybe because renewable energy is mandated to mitigate against climate change, and you have a persistent view that climate change is a hoax. Why you mistrust the science on global warming when you accept the science on everything else is a continuing mystery to me.

But if that’s where you’re coming from when you scorn developments in renewable energy, you’re making a vital mistake. You see, renewable energy is sustainable energy. Despite any collapse in the globalised economy, or disruption to fossil fuel production, wind turbines will keep spinning, and solar panels will keep glowing.

Climate change has been hard to communicate effectively – it’s a huge volume of research, it frequently appears esoteric, or vague, or written by boffins with their heads in the clouds. Some very intelligent people are still not sure about the finer points of the effects of global warming, and so you’re keeping good company if you reserve judgement on some of the more fringe research.

But attacking renewable energy is your final stand. With evidence from the engineering, it is rapidly becoming clear that renewable energy works. The facts are proving you wrong.

And when people realise you’re wrong about renewable energy, they’ll never believe you again. They won’t listen to you when you express doubts about climate change, because you deny the facts of renewable energy.

Those poor fools who have been duped into thinking they are acting on behalf of the environment to campaign against wind farms ! Wind energy will be part of the backbone of the energy grids of the future.

We don’t want and we can’t afford the concrete bunkers of deadly radioactive kettles and their nasty waste. We don’t want and we can’t afford the slag heaps, dirty air and melting Arctic that comes from burning coal for power. We don’t want and we can’t afford to keep oil and Natural Gas producing countries sweet – or wage war against them to keep the taps open.

Instead we want tall and graceful spinners, their gentle arms waving electricity from the breeze. We want silent and dark photovoltaic cladding on every roof.

Burning things should only be done to cover for intermittency in wind and sunshine. Combustion is very inefficient, yet you support combustion when you oppose renewable energy.

We must fight waste in energy, and the rising cost of energy, and yet you don’t support the energy resources where there is no charge for fuel. Some would say that’s curmudgeonly.

When you oppose renewable energy, what is it you’re fighting for ? The old, inefficient and poisonous behemoths of coal hell ? We who support renewable, sustainable energy, we exchange clunky for sleek, toxic for clean. We provide light and comfort to all, rich and poor.

When you oppose renewable energy, you are being unbelievably gullible – you have swallowed an argument that can ruin our economy, by locking us into dependency on energy imports. You are passing up the chance to break our political obedience to other countries, all because wind turbines clutter up your panoramic view when you’re on holiday.

You can question the net energy gain from wind power, but the evidence shows you to be incorrect.

If you criticise the amount of investment and subsidy going into renewable energy, you clearly haven’t understood the net effect of incentivisation in new technology deployment.

Renewable energy has a positive Net Present Value. Wind turbines and solar panels are genuine assets, unlike the liabilities that are coal-fired power stations and nuclear reactors.

Renewable energy deployment will create meaningful, sustainable employment and is already creating wealth, not only in financial terms, but in social welfare terms too.

Renewable energy will save this country, so why do you knock it ?

Quizzically yours,

2 replies on “Open Letter to Renewable Energy Deniers”

Jo – once again you are guilty of making assumptions and a conclusion to fit your agenda

Deniers – a label used by the agenda driven that makes the thinking person laugh at your bias and naivety

I do not dismiss renewable but I question its efficiency. The assumption that it will work requires back up gas fired stations to be kept on standby. On standby they are considerably less efficient than a gas fired power station working to capacity.

Gas- Fracking – a technology demonised by the alarmists because you really do not want gas to have a second wind. Sorry about the pun – could not resist it.

No sceptic denies climate change as you infer – we simply question the assumptions and the advocacy of so called Climatescience. And let’s face it the recent revelations via Climategate 1 and 2 have not served the alarmist cause well have they?

Then we have the various reports that neatly assume far greater efficiency with “renewables” because everyone will insulate far better with renewables but they will not bother with gas etc?

Seriously!!! What planet are you on to think that people will not see this manipulation for exactly what it is? – Spin – smoke and mirrors – the very thing you accuse the sceptics of doing when in reality all we do is ask the questions you do not want answerred.

So as for people “not listening” – definitely pot […] kettle […] on your part in my book.

I could not read your description of Wind turbines as “graceful spinners” with “gentle arms waving electricity from the breeze” without laughing – you should go into advertising Jo.

Meanwhile those of us true environmentalists that are appalled at the destruction of birds – see the videos and weep Jo – as well as the disruption of migration paths would no doubt agree with you that each house should have photovoltaic panels – but have you seen how and where these are manufactured and the pollution the manufacture and transportation of these panels incurs?

So blind acceptance of this technology without question is the “science” of fools.

I do not think you have and if you have you ignore the facts because they do not fit your agenda.

““graceful spinners” – yeah right.

You may or may not be graceful Jo – but you are certainly a spin doctor.

The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
system is possible, that it requires supplementation of about 6% of electricity demand, from sources now used for peaking purposes. A corollary observation is that the concept of baseload generation is more or less irrelevant to its successful operation of such a system.


With the unfortunate climate change and peak oil hitting us at once, and our conservative counterparts are stalled thinking there is a hoax or something.

There is a lot of communication needed on our parts to get the information out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.