What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | 5 Minute Video

Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs? Or do they come with too high a price? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, analyzes the true cost — both economic and environmental — of so-called green energy.

FOLLOW us!

SHOP!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

Script:

Have you ever heard of "unobtanium"?

It's the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It's a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they've found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.

They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.

The simple truth is that we can't. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.

To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren't being talked about.

All sources of energy have limits that can't be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun's photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.

So, we're pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren't any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we're told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.

Consider the world's biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day's worth of America's electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world's energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies. 

Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they're built from nonrenewable materials. 

Consider some sobering numbers: 

A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet. 

Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater. 

Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few. 

Where's all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect. 

Australia's Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global "gold" rush for energy materials will take miners into "…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven't yet been disturbed."

And who is doing the mining? Let's just say that they're not all going to be union workers with union protections.  

Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: "The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks."

And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.

Then there's the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.

[peytonsmith]

*Nuclear power, geothermal power, tidal power, and hydro power have entered the chat.

[LesMiserables]

As someone who works on an SSBN, I cannot see any power source more efficient, safe, cost effective and supportive of future technologies than nuclear power.

[LucidDreamer]

I produce electricity by rubbing my cat on the carpet. I think this is the future of energy.

[davebrunero]

When I started in college, I wanted to go into the field of photovoltaics (solar power). However after taking a senior level class in alternative energy, I could not support the field. It was the problem of justifying an energy source that was costing more energy to manufacture then would be recovered over its life. Let alone the chemical waste from production and disposing of old equipment...

At the same time I was working in a nuclear lab on campus and taking an into class in the field. The nuclear folks always seemed to be the most honest and dedicated to doing the ethical action (they understood the mistakes made in the past). Some of the folks in the solar and wind field seemed to have the perspective of any means was justified for the end goal.

Now don't get me wrong, if you have a cabin in the woods solar and wind power can be significantly more efficient than running power lines. However to reliably power a city, other sources like nuclear are simply more efficient / better for the environment.

[gadlicht]

Let’s go thru mistakes:

1. 33% is not maximum theoretical efficiency of solar cell, its max efficiency of silicon in unconcentrated PV. We have achieved over 40%. Look it up

2. Lithium battery is not only way to store power, neither is it as rare as you make it claim and can be recycled. What’s rarer? Elements used to make drill bits etc in mining

3. There is more solar power striking earth every hour than all fossil fuels combined

4: you can produce chemicals without CO2 see STEP process

5. The cheapest power in US is now generated by wind turbines, second cheapest solar power. Why? Partly because you have to ship refine etc oil

6. Better grids can alleviate many of problems u mentioned

7. Oil causes numerous environmental damage including air pollution that alone even without global warming makes renewable cheaper

And that’s beginning

[Deontjie]

The main problem is that with modern social media, opinions carry more weight than facts.

[joshjohnson]

I’ve worked 13 hour shifts as security at a wind farm. Let’s talk about hearing the bones of dead birds crunching under the tires of my patrol vehicle at every turbine I circled on patrols. When I got off in the morning people would come in with hazmat suits to pick up the birds...like a pathogen was the issue.

[micahrubel]

Student of materials engineering here: Two stipulation I would like to add: solar panels in the lab HAVE broken through the 33% barrier. That maximum was made under the assumption that a solar panel only absorbs one wavelength of light (well, it's a bit more complicated, but whatever). With those in the lab, they can essentially stack different types of materials together and make a higher efficiency panel. The theoretical maximum in that case is around 90% efficiency. It would cost a pretty penny for that, though.

Another thing is that grid-scale batteries have been shown to be highly effective in small scales. Look to the example of Australia's grid. It was having issues regulating its power throughput. Tesla put in a battery pack, and now it runs quite smoothly. With a base of power plants' power, solar power, wind and batteries could prove to be quite useful indeed. If all it's doing is regulating power, you need much less energy storage.

Also, I agree we need more than wind, solar, and battery power. But renewable energy is about finding any and every source of energy we can to help sustainability. Hydro and geothermal, for instance, are extraordinarily useful where they can be found.

[Vitor-itqh]

Here in Brazil the most used power source is Hydro power. I’m not going to say that’s 100% clean ( mostly because of the flooding that the construction of hydroelectric plant cause ), but comparing to this material waste, it can be a more stable solution

[buckbuchhagen]

Dennis, redo this video and mention nuclear. Anybody who has done their homework knows nuclear is the answer.

[carolgoerke]

Nuclear is the logical source for our energy needs!

[TylerHallHiveTech]

Yes. But the solution you were looking for was “nuclear”.

[Hzur]

Denmark proves you wrong. 40% of our energy is from wind. I think these types of energy systems depend where they are located at. In Denmark it constantly is windy, specifically at higher altitudes.

[GeneralSpanky]

I'm excited to see where we go with thorium but unfortunately I will have to see how it works out with China since everyone else is scared of nuclear energy

[ryancox]

A 2-megawatt windmill contains 260 tons of steel, requiring 170 tons of coking coal and 300 tons of iron ore, all mined, transported, and produced by hydrocarbon spewing processes and machines. In summary: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

[RandyLy]

Hey, I'm an Environmental Engineer and everything that he's saying is true. These are facts that cannot be argued with.
However, he does fail to mention the negatives of using hydrocarbons/oil, and I think we can all agree that every energy source has its own negative. Cost of oil is definitely way cheaper but there are also other environmental (possible oil spills) and human (cancer-related) health issues that come with it.

I can also tell this channel is leaning towards a Republican viewpoint and being a leaning Democrat; I am open to hearing all feasible suggestions. I know solar and wind isn't the perfect solution as mentioned in the video, but it is a start. Every location will have a preferred energy source that works best for that location.

[waynesullivant]

People think politicians are doing their part in “saving the planet” by subsidizing this stuff. Action is their substitute for success.

[dontdrinkbleach]

As an professional in the solar industry, I can not begin to tell you just how many lies have been said here. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are in the pocket of big oil!

[davegoldspink]

As someone who has always lived in reality I’ve never been a fan of solar, wind and battery technology. Although this talk by Mark is very sobering it’s also a great reminder how we are getting our energy security future so wrong if we keep going down this wind and solar pip dream road. Absolutely brilliant video thanks so much for sharing.

[sminthian]

I used to work at a plant that built wind turbines. I was in the blade-making section, each was 120 feet long. Each blade (a wind turbine uses 3) would fill up a 40 foot dumpster full of chemical-laden materials. There were trucks swapping out dumpsters every day, that were all considered hazmat.