To the Journal editor:

As a physicist/engineer, I have been impressed with some of the ingenious adaptations of renewable energy, primarily wind and solar.

What I fear most, however, is politicians or government will interfere and try to cram a square peg into a round hole where renewables are not well suited. Some of these are: do not scale up well; retro-fit, store, transmit, not progressive and intermittent.

It should be obvious that while some solar panels on a roof may beneficially power a one-story building, simply tripling the number of solar panels for a three-story building will probably not work.

All the buildings I have seen have been designed from the ground up with renewables in mind; adobe, southern exposure, domed roof, small windows.

Storage is for the most part, the common 12-volt battery which requires a separate room or building to handle the number required for even with simplest appliances.

Transmission lines are incredibly lousy and trying to transmit energy over a long distance quickly runs afoul of the law of diminishing returns.

Not progressive: renewable energy has been around at least since Archimedes yoked his water pump to a windmill. What is truly amazing is the lack of major progress in production since. The only major break through that comes to mind is the solar cell which unfortunately produces miliamps when amps are needed.

Intermittent: maximum demand and maximum supply often don’t overlap.

At this point I would like to say a few words about the “no emission electric car” and the “grid.”

Apparently if the emissions are produced at point B but used at point A, point A is absolved of having caused any emissions. The electric car may have some definite advantages, but saving the planet is not one of them.

Then there is the “grid.” The grid is neither a production not a storage device. It is a directional device. It can only direct available energy of the moment. If there is not enough capacity to account for periods when renewable is zero, rolling blackouts will occur.

If the tone of this letter seems negative, that it not my intent. Renewable energy should be in the mix. Any scheme that can survive a positive/cost/benefit analysis without government mandates or subsidies, I am on board with. Otherwise count me out.

GEORGE GEIKAS

Munising