Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, moon, domer76, Nomad, CharacterAssassin, Jade Dragon, Guno צְבִי and reagansghost


Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 105

Thread: The Physical Impossibility of Renewable Energy Meeting the Paris Accord Goals

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default The Physical Impossibility of Renewable Energy Meeting the Paris Accord Goals

    Not sure what you can say to stupid arrogant people that think renewables are the Holy Grail. Sadly I suspect nothing will convince them until the inevitable failure and several trillions go down the crapper.


    Mark Mills has a new report and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig” that point out the physical impossibility of renewable energy (mainly wind and solar power) and battery storage transitioning the world to a “new energy economy.” The transition would require “the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.” Wind turbines, solar panels, and storage batteries are made from nonrenewable materials that wear out and must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. For example, to meet the Paris accord benchmarks, the solar power required by 2050 would result in the disposal of solar panels equivalent to over double the tonnage of the world’s current plastic waste.

    According to Mark Mills, building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete, and 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic and solar power requires even more cement, steel, glass, and other metals—notably rare earth minerals. Global demand for rare-earth minerals would need to increase by between 300 percent and 1,000 percent by 2050 to meet the Paris renewable goals. These minerals are generally mined in nations with oppressive labor practices. For more information on rare earth minerals, refer to this recent IER post.

    Furthermore, mining and manufacturing require the consumption of fossil fuels. To supply half the world’s electricity using wind turbines would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel and two billion barrels of oil to make the blades. And, most (over 90 percent) of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia with electric power heavily fueled by coal.

    Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables

    Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) supply 84 percent of the world’s energy—a share that has decreased only modestly from 87 percent two decades ago. Over those two decades, total world energy use rose by 50 percent—an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand. The small percentage-point decline in the fossil fuel share of world energy use required over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period. In contrast, wind, solar, and batteries provide about 2 percent of today’s world’s energy. Despite this dichotomy, developers of the Green New Deal and others want you to believe that renewable technologies will replace fossil fuels and can do so rapidly—even within the next ten years.

    Renewable energy (wind and solar power) do not have the combination of low-cost, high-energy-density, stability, safety, and portability of fossil fuels. For example, if one spends $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines or solar panels, over 30 years of operation, each of them would produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours, while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate more than 300 million kilowatt-hours—over six times as much energy.

    In the “new energy economy,” batteries are a major feature both to store electricity for the grid and to power electric vehicles. Because the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine, batteries would be needed to provide back-up power for wind turbines and solar panels. But, the sheer magnitude of what would be required is mind-boggling. For example, the $5 billion Tesla “Gigafactory” in Nevada is currently the world’s biggest battery manufacturing facility and its total annual production would store just three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. Therefore, to manufacture enough batteries to store two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand would require almost 1,000 years of “Gigafactory” production.

    About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent in one pound of fossil fuels. For every one pound of batteries produced, 50 to 100 pounds of lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, and cobalt are mined and processed. Thus, a future of batteries for electric vehicles and back-up energy for the grid would require mining gigatons more materials as well as gigatons of materials needed to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels.

    Lithium battery production today accounts for about 40 percent of lithium mining and 25 percent of cobalt mining. In an all-battery future, global mining would have to expand by more than 200 percent for copper, by a minimum of 500 percent for lithium, graphite, and rare earths, and far more for cobalt.

    Comparing Batteries to Gasoline and Oil

    A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds and manufacturing it requires mining and processing over 500,000 pounds of raw materials. Using gasoline, one can extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

    About $200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, weighing over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil weighs 300 pounds and can be stored in a $20 tank. Even an unlikely 200 percent improvement in lithium battery economics and technology would not close the gap.

    Conclusion

    The Green New Deal and a “new energy economy” are not physically possible despite what America’s politicians believe and what is promoted in the media. The sooner they come to grips with reality, the better for U.S. citizens, many of whom naively believe their patter. Recognizing it now means acknowledging the challenges and searching for solutions to those problems.
    https://www.instituteforenergyresear...mpression=true

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    countryboy (11-12-2019), Stretch (11-13-2019), Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,055
    Thanks
    2,436
    Thanked 8,812 Times in 6,202 Posts
    Groans
    568
    Groaned 493 Times in 469 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Not sure what you can say to stupid arrogant people that think renewables are the Holy Grail. Sadly I suspect nothing will convince them until the inevitable failure and several trillions go down the crapper.




    https://www.instituteforenergyresear...mpression=true
    Stand by for ad hominem attacks, and zero addressing of the points you have raised.

    I've often wondered why wind turbines have to be made to such a colossal scale. The materials for a single unit alone, makes their widespread use untenable. I can't imagine they ever pay for themselves, and that would seem to run contrary to the actual purpose of "renewable energy".

    Much of the radical leftist agenda is "physically impossible", this is but yet another example.
    Every life matters

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to countryboy For This Post:

    anonymoose (11-12-2019), cancel2 2022 (11-12-2019), Stretch (11-13-2019), Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Stand by for ad hominem attacks, and zero addressing of the points you have raised.

    I've often wondered why wind turbines have to be made to such a colossal scale. The materials for a single unit alone, makes their widespread use untenable. I can't imagine they ever pay for themselves, and that would seem to run contrary to the actual purpose of "renewable energy".

    Much of the radical leftist agenda is "physically impossible", this is but yet another example.
    Especially when you factor in the decommissioning costs which can around $500 thousand per turbine and more if they are off-shore.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    countryboy (11-12-2019), Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Stand by for ad hominem attacks, and zero addressing of the points you have raised.

    I've often wondered why wind turbines have to be made to such a colossal scale. The materials for a single unit alone, makes their widespread use untenable. I can't imagine they ever pay for themselves, and that would seem to run contrary to the actual purpose of "renewable energy".

    Much of the radical leftist agenda is "physically impossible", this is but yet another example.
    Here is another article by Mark Mills, we need more like him not a 16 year old schoolgirl spouting bullshit written for her by cynical climate activists.


    Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand

    1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80% of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

    2. The small two percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than 2% of the global energy.

    3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

    4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace 5% of global oil demand.

    5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” 10-fold.

    6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

    7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16% of world energy.

    8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33%, the economy grew 80% and global energy use is up 40%.

    9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70%, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50%.

    10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

    11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50%, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

    12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

    13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

    14. To make enough batteries to store two-day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

    15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.

    16. Every $1 billion spent on datacenters leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on datacenters is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

    Realities About Energy Economics

    17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

    18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hour, the shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

    19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

    20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41% and 29% capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as 10 percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

    21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

    22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improving at about 0.7% per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to 50% increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

    23. Over 90% of America’s electricity, and 99% of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

    24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25%–30% of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

    25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70% of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20% since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

    Energy Physics… Inconvenient Realities

    26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.

    27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

    28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

    29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

    30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

    31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33% of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26%.

    32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60% of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45%.

    33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500% greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

    34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

    35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

    36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

    37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

    38. It takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

    39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

    40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70% coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

    41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

    Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University, and author of Work in the Age of Robots, published by Encounter Books.

    https://economics21.org/inconvenient...energy-economy
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 11-12-2019 at 06:45 AM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Stand by for ad hominem attacks, and zero addressing of the points you have raised.

    I've often wondered why wind turbines have to be made to such a colossal scale. The materials for a single unit alone, makes their widespread use untenable. I can't imagine they ever pay for themselves, and that would seem to run contrary to the actual purpose of "renewable energy".

    Much of the radical leftist agenda is "physically impossible", this is but yet another example.
    Haven't yet but it's still early there!!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default


  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default


  13. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    "Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier
    China wants to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050 and is building a test facility to find the best way to send power to the ground."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ier-ncna967451

  14. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,756
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,419 Times in 7,538 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Stand by for ad hominem attacks, and zero addressing of the points you have raised.

    I've often wondered why wind turbines have to be made to such a colossal scale. The materials for a single unit alone, makes their widespread use untenable. I can't imagine they ever pay for themselves, and that would seem to run contrary to the actual purpose of "renewable energy".

    Much of the radical leftist agenda is "physically impossible", this is but yet another example.
    Wind turbines are pie in the sky virtue signaling for a naive society. Not only have they ruined the Germany countryside but you’re correct - they’ll never pay for themselves much less any affect on the weather. We’ll just have to get used to the fact that any presently dry land not flooded in 12 yrs will go up in flames at that time.

  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (11-12-2019), Into the Night (11-12-2019), Sailor (11-12-2019), Stretch (11-13-2019), Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  16. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    "As the green energy revolution accelerates, solar farms have become a familiar sight across the nation and around the world. But China is taking solar power to a whole new level. The nation has announced plans to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050, a feat that would make it the first nation to harness the sun’s energy in space and beam it to Earth."

  17. The Following User Groans At Jack For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (11-13-2019)

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    Cinnabar (11-12-2019)

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    "China Is Winning the Solar Space Race
    The United States should be leading on the energy of the future—but it keeps blowing its chances."
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/16...ar-space-race/

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    Cinnabar (11-12-2019)

  21. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    "Every disaster movie starts with the president ignoring a scientist. But humanity’s survival isn’t a movie. If any U.S. president in the last five decades had had the foresight to take space-based solar power technology seriously, the incoming man-made climate disaster could already have been averted with a clean, constant, and limitless power source that costs less than burning fossil fuels—and the United States could be leading the field."

    It's a National Priority. This needs to be Funded by the DOD (Department of Defense). Other than Havana, anybody against 'America First'.

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "Every disaster movie starts with the president ignoring a scientist. '.
    Yeah, the presidents in disaster movies listen to the "scientific consensus" instead of the one guy that disagrees with the "expert consensus".



    Do you know how expensive it is to put shit into space?

    Let China spend the R&D dollars. We can "borrow" their tech once it's completed.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bigdog For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (11-12-2019), Stretch (11-13-2019)

  24. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "China Is Winning the Solar Space Race
    The United States should be leading on the energy of the future—but it keeps blowing its chances."
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/16...ar-space-race/
    China is also leading in 4th gen. nuclear, why don't you talk about that, Mr. Meoff?


  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Sailor (11-12-2019), Stretch (11-13-2019), Truth Detector (11-12-2019)

  26. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    China is also leading in 4th gen. nuclear, why don't you talk about that, Mr. Meoff?

    That (and Brexit) seem to be your forte.

  27. The Following User Groans At Jack For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (11-12-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Apparently, Fat Ass Might Not Quit the Paris Climate Accord
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-17-2017, 10:15 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-17-2017, 09:18 PM
  3. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-02-2017, 09:34 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-29-2016, 07:57 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-29-2016, 07:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •