One of the biggest problems with the renewable sources of energy (wind, solar) is their reliability. For electrical grid to function correctly you need to maintain stable frequency. Therefore you need backup energy sources (coal, oil, nuclear) to maintain stability of the grid. For every wind or solar powerplant you must have backup (in european union).
If you will suddenly lost significant part of your power supply the whole country can go into blackout. Restarting power grid in a smaller country can take a few days.
For example, country where I live in will go into blackout, neighbor countries will immediately cut us from theirs power grids. And not all countries have enough power plants to run them. So they must buy energy from neighbor countries. Military (at least in my country) have their own dedicated powerplants for worst case scenarios.
It is true that renewable sources of energy such as solar or wind energy do not allow for continuous supply of electricity. Therefore huge investment into infrastructure is necessary including
- adapting price to current supply situation allowing consumers to shift their actual consumption to periods when supply is abundant
- installing pumped-storage power stations
- reserve capacity for peak load which will sell at higher prices
The main problem today is that the distribution of electricity is not yet a market that can be accessed by all potential suppliers. A prerequirement is
- separating infrastructure from suppliers
- heavy investment into infrastructure to allow for communication between consumers and suppliers including spot prices
Please note that the Obama administration has also started a USD 3.4 billion investment program for smart grids, see link below
Engineers always pretend that change is not possible, but all what is needed for change is dedication and a little bit of courage. I remember European refiners crying when legislation for low sulphur fuel was introduced. They pretended that the hydrogen balance of the refineries would not allow for complying with the new rules. In the end the required changes were made for a fraction of the projected cost.
"Global Warming has not been scientifically proven, it has merely been a landslide of carefully selected information to prove themselves right. The humans do not have enough data to prove this and normal cycles occur on our Earth all the time, since the beginning of said planet".
Ivar Giaevar has never intended to make a public statement on global warming, as he has never been interested in the subject. He made this statement, when he was on a panel discussion on global warming at the 58th Lindau meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2008.
The Canada Free Press - a right wing newspaper - is the only source of this statement. If you track back the way the information took from the source, you will find that it is a blogspot in German language. This was translated into English and appeared in the US Senate EPW Committee Minority Report.
So let us have a look at the German source of this statement cited by "Canada Free Press". Giaevar made this statement during a discussion on solar cells. The background for this discussion is that solar panels are highly subsidized in Germany, despite the notorious lack of sun. The net yield of solar panels is therefore not terrific. If you rank so-called environment friendly energies, based on net yields and CO2 emissions, actually wind beats solar panels (in Germany), while land-grown biofuels are entire nonsense for many reasons (not talking about algae).
Gievar is not an expert on climate change and he was visibly not interested in the subject. May I cite from his presentation:
"I did a little research on google to prepare for this panel" His attitude towards climatic change was more a joke, as he said: "I am Norvegian, why should I be afraid of climatic change?" The Norvegian coast is notorious for bad weather. Stavanger is one of the cities with the highest rainfalls.
The whole panel was not serious, as physicists are no experts on climatic change:
Out of 8 nobel prize winners, Gievar was the only one, who did not think that action to contain climatic change was urgent. So, if I may cite your source and conclude that 7 out of 8 nobel prize winners at the meeting - although most of them no experts in the field - were convinced that urgent action against climatic change is required.
For recent research on climate see conference here: