Nobody denies that climate change is happening. The common question that is asked of people is if they believe climate change is real, and these types of questions are generally geared towards a political agenda. The question is not if it is real or not, but instead is if man has something to do with it. Any quick analysis of weather patterns and ocean temperatures can prove that the earth is getting warmer, but the opposing sides disagree on the cause of this warming. Advocates of fossil fuels argue that this is a natural pattern of a planet, getting hotter and colder due to natural circumstances. Advocates of alternative energy sources argue that manmade pollution is contributing to these changes, and accelerating the rate of global warming.These tow sides actually do agree on something, that pollution is created by burning fossil fuels. Nobody denies the fact that pollution is created by this process, but the differences come based on one's belief of the levels of damage that are caused by that pollution. Advocates for fossil fuels argue that the damage that is produced to the environment is minimal enough that the costs savings over alternative energy production is worth it. Those arguing for alternative energy production say it is not. Both sides agree there is damage and both sides are weighing the cost in comparison to the damage amount, but what if the alternative energy production methods also cost less?
The main cost basis in alternative energy production is equipment, and the repair or replacement of that equipment. Wind and solar systems both use sophisticated computer equipment to create and harness the electricity, and because these installations need to be in relatively remote and unobstructed spaces they are targets for lighting strikes. This simple weakness means that periodic lightning strike damage must be factored into the business plans and ultimately passed off to the consumer in order to remain profitable, and the damage that has been observed with these regular occurrences of lightning strike allows for estimates and projections of cost to be made. Even though the wind and sun are free, the costs associated with repair and replacement of this equipment ends up being higher than fossil fuel production. In addition, the systems being knocked offline during times when the wind and sun are present create inefficiencies in production that results in the methods not being able to produce enough electricity to satisfy demands. If lightning strikes could be eliminated, these issues would be solved surpluses of electricity could be made, all the while driving costs down and resulting in lower electricity bills for consumers.
Lighting strikes cannot be eliminated, however the damage that they do can be significantly reduced. The costs pile up as a result not of the strike, but of the surge. The lightning strike to a wind tower or solar panel will damage that point, but the real costs are found in damage caused by the surge that moves from that point and through connected equipment. The power surges can destroy circuitry in equipment that is nowhere near the strike point, and ultimately knock the system offline during peak hours with totally free fuel sources. The integration of advanced surge protection devices into these systems can reduce damage, and the development of more advanced and robust surge protection devices can protect even further. As a result, equipment can be used for longer than predicted periods of time before needing to be repaired or replaced, and the systems can stay online for longer periods creating more of a surplus of electricity. The result is electricity generated by systems that produce no pollution, as well as being cheaper and providing enough to power entire communities without backup sources. The by product of saving money and reducing costs is the reduction of global warming, because all consumers will favor the cheaper methods of production, especially if theya re cleaner as well.
