Renewables Are Dead
- This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Gustave Courbet The man made mad by fear 1844 If I’ve said once that those among us who tout renewable energy should pay more attention to the
[See the full post at: Renewables Are Dead]For me the key take-away from this article is that LARGE scale renewable projects don’t work. But what about localized small scale ones? While large scale planning may be necessary, perhaps the answer lies in regional grids that don’t try to transmit for miles, and don’t expect uninterrupted availability of electricity. I know some folks think nuclear plants could work, but they never think of the long, long term disposal of used wastes.
Course, this does not include the current need for food to be trucked and shipped huge distances. Again, localize resources of food are necessary. We will need to down size in so many ways.
Glennda, I did touch on that in the article:
.. these issues only arise when you talk about large-scale projects, but then those are the only ones even considered.
But even then, on a local level too the same issue arises: you can only save energy, and produce less waste, by not using it, not by switching from one sort to another. It may seem to work, but thermodynamics gets in the way.
Of course there’s always a possibility that your community can look ‘green’ because your waste lands on someone else’s doorstep. That’s sort of like our entire societal make-up anyway.
It’s why I like the Spiegel piece so much, it shows us the failings of renewables so clearly. Something that’s hard to do without the experimental evidence, because everybody focuses on the feel-good factors so much, politicians, companies, media, but also you and me.
It takes a major effort to get out of that mindset. And why should you? It’ll only make you feel worse.
“But even then, on a local level too the same issue arises: you can only save energy, and produce less waste, by not using it, not by switching from one sort to another. It may seem to work, but thermodynamics gets in the way.”
Electricity stops then society stops functioning.
Therefore, less waste, nobody can use it.
Alternative:
Start your standby generator while everyone dies.
Next, use solar panels while everything else is stopped.
Next, use windmill when there is nothing else.
Next, do what you can with what you have.
Result, major population decline and major decrease of waste, etc.Result, major population decline and major decrease of waste, etc.
That’s the spirit, zero, nice knowing ya!
Interesting read, unsurprising conclusion. It made me reflect that it has been quite a long time, years at least, since I have seen the trucks carrying windmill towers and blades heading south out of Longview, WA to travel east on I-84 out to central and eastern Oregon. Perhaps that has all been built out as much as it makes sense to do, either because the good sites are all gone, or the subsidies ended. I used to notice the big trucks on the days I would cycle to work, since it would take 12 minutes to cross the bridge over the Columbia, and I would see a lot of the oncoming freeway traffic in that time from a leisurely vantage point.
Rototillerman, you make me think back of all the things out there about efficiency of wind, always grossly exaggerated, and about A locations and all the other locations. But I don’t think it makes any difference. It’s all just subsidies and hot air.
Problems are happening with the following renewables energy productions
Heartland Heartache Hits Record: “Mississippi River At Major Flood Stage For 41 Days & Counting”
The truth hurts.
Read the following link at your peril.Raúl,
It does my 76 year old Engineering heart good to read you thinking like this. So thank you, But unfortunately, I need to disagree somewhat.
Entropy speaks more of order or disorder, not energy, per se. This is why it has a foundation in morality, where evil is equated to positive entropy, and life, classical literature, love, and the like are equated to negative or reversed entropy.
The classical entropy example is steel and rust, with the rust the higher in entropy. But just because rust contains oxygen atoms does not make it more energetic. Recall that the Redox reaction of oxidation has the memory refrain, LEO, lose electrons-oxidation. Any LENR aficionado will tell you that electrons are the key to free energy.
But entropy can be reversed. It takes outside energy, of course. Think of a bunch of troublesome boys, just going around destructively, annoying everyone. Evil. The add the energy a a loving youth leader, who gathers them, teaches them a skill, and produces a coherent band of do-gooders. Not evil.
Was his energy free? Of course not. that is not what the math is about. Its about the battle between disorder and order.
Speaking of LENR (we were, weren’t we..?) Remember Fleischmann and Pons? Their sad story is reaching a brighter end as numerous (NGO!) researchers have found that the right atoms in the right combination with Deuterium releases very clean thermal energy in copious amounts.in the presence of a stabilized low-energy plasma. This will, indeed lead to almost free, clean energy which will allow us to undo untoward amounts of positive entropy. No need to skimp, as you suggest.
Separate the wheat from the chaff, but see https://e-catworld.com/If not, it would seem to be time to reconsider a few things. First of all: stop advocating renewables, start advocating the use of less energy. I’m not saying it will be much use, I have this deep-seated fear that we, as a species, won’t be able to stop until nature itself stops us.
Realistically? We do not learn; rinse and repeat…endlessly.
We’re going to do ourselves in; temporary respite; a few generations later, we’ll forget and do that which is our nature…I think I paraphrase Nicole Foss who said that a civilization capable of renewable energy sources at scale can’t be run on them. In other words, renewables are similar to our financial system — kind of a ponzi scheme in the end, that doesn’t really produce much when all the subtraction of costs is accounted for. And of course they are highly entwined in that system right from the get go.
I will say though, that arguing against renewables is not a way to win friends and influence people.Gail Tverberg, who I think writes well about this subject, has softened her stance a tiny bit, but only in the sense that these projects create some jobs. And aren’t most of our jobs pointless at this point anyway?
The only argument I would make for renewables is based on my experience living aboard a 9 meter sailboat (built in Holland, I might add) for 8 years. Solar and wind work very well, but; the lifestyle requirements are nowhere as demanding as trying to electrify a house or maintaine an extravagant lifestyle.
If people were willing to live modestly, renewables could work, IMO.
Tiny houses come to mind…Of course the headline is provocative. That’s how I wanted it. What it means is that renewables are dead as a solution to the problems it purports to solve.
Should I lie to win friends and influence people? I sort of decided against that, on all topics, not just this one. You should see the flack I get for not supporting the anti-Trump campaign. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. No, I’m not, and you can’t make me.
Enginer, no such thing as free clean energy in copious amounts. And I think that’s a good thing: look at what we did with the free energy that oil has endowed us with.
On a general note: how many politicians, scientists, industrialists and media do you see promoting less energy use? I see none.
Using energy produces waste. Using more energy produces more waste. It doesn’t matter -much- what kind of energy is used, or what kind of waste is produced. The energy WE use produces waste, in a medium of which WE cannot survive.
There are two mistakes in your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. Firstly, the Earth is not a closed system; it rejects heat to space. Secondly, the solar energy absorbed by the Earth is converted to waste heat whether or not we make use of it. For example, wind eventually dissipates against hillsides, trees, buildings, etc and its kinetic energy is converted to heat. Putting a wind turbine in the way still converts it to the same amount of heat, but that is generated in the turbine and at the point of use of the electricity. Solar PV does a similar thing by intercepting energy that would otherwise heat the ground.
Renewables don’t change the energy balance of the Earth very much at all.
The rest of your article is about how harnessing renewable energy at large scale is difficult. I don’t disagree with that at all.
On a general note: how many politicians, scientists, industrialists and media do you see promoting less energy use? I see none.
True. Me either…
Ilargi; stick to your guns (so to speak); you make TAE one of a kind; the best kind.A friend sent me a mail he got from Ugo Bardi (a mailing list I presume):
Dear colleagues,
you may have seen this article appeared a few days ago on “Der Spiegel” (here translated into English)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/148Lym3a487S8lha50QXGJfjQ1HmlNyj3QfLqAt0k0ng/edit
It is not a bad article, it is actually pro-renewables, they want the government to do much more than they have been doing so far. Unfortunately, some people completely misunderstood it, such as Raoul Ilargi, normally an intelligent and well informed commenter who titles his post “Renewables are dead”
Unfortunately, the idea that renewable energy is useless seems to be making inroads in the public consciousness, sometimes on the basis of some weird thermodynamic considerations developed by people who know little about thermodynamics.
So, the situation is not developing well. I don’t know if someone in this group has some idea on how to contrast this wave of anti-renewable pessimism, if so, maybe we could discuss that.
I’m a bit disappointed that Ugo doesn’t send it to me. He knows me, we met.
Two comments: 1) I didn’t say that renewable energy is useless. Why make that claim? I pointed out that scaling it up the way Germany tried doesn’t work. Again, renewables cannot replace fossil fuels, in precisely the sense that Nicole meant when she said complex societies cannot be run on them.
2) As for the Germans having to do much more, I’m thinking the article I quoted shows that that may not be the way to go. And I don’t mean to say don’t develop any renewables, what I criticize is the blind drive towards them with hardly a mention of energy-saving measures.
A simplified example: the car you drive is about 20x your weight, and its engine burns 10% of the fuel you put in, in an effective manner. And even that just to move around 20x your weight. An electric car may be a little more efficient, but the general concept is still based on wasting energy.
And it’s the general concept that has to change. We need to stop fooling people into thinking renewables solve any of this.
Lots here, so many directions. And as complicated as the problem is, explaining the solutions is 10x more.
So yesterday’s presentation, he said he had a 6 hour version. Explaining some of the solutions would take 60 hours, at least. And who will listen? Who has time? Most can’t even click the Tedx length.
To me, the problem you have is exactly one of low-entropy inputs. That is to say, unlike anthracite, renewables are very mild and energy weak. If they weren’t, we would have used them instead of coal in the first place, and the Middle Ages would have had the industrial revolution and space travel instead of vice-versa.
But this says something else: it’s impossible to centralize renewable energies.
The problem isn’t renewables at all. We already know a super-insulated home with high appliances and solar can make any house self-sufficient into Canada or Scandinavia. So why not do that? Because then they wouldn’t have centralization, and therefore, rentier profits and life and death control over the citizens. You – they – the whole population would be off the ranch, escaped from Bosch and Siemens and German government control. So they need to pick one: total central control or renewable energy. And they already picked. They picked their true love, power and control and death, and let renewables fail spectacularly, despite every advantage. Any hack on the Isle of Skye can make it work, but not them!
And while normally I wouldn’t mind letting dummies collapse into their own cesspool of ignorance and failure, but in this case, the loss of $4 Trillion prevents installing anything that DOES work. Of which we have lots. And lots. And lots and lots and lots, but none of it is controlled by Siemens and PGE over the grid.
The grid loses 20% of power all day, all night. You don’t have the energy in renewables to spare to just blow 20% of all power into the air, with another 20% lost in vampire taps like standby TVs and cell charger cubes. But not to fear, they will kill us all by demanding unnecessary, illogical, anti-science centralization rather than independent cabins with a front garden. Clearly. As they’ve been at it 30 years and how many billions in front-garden-subsidies have been offered? Sorry, we have far more important things to do, subsidizing multi-billionaire Elon Musk so he can light greenies on fire in their own cars and drive them into walls in Santa Monica. #Winning
Moral: you’re on your own. Worse than that, government will come down and steal everything they can find to GIVE it to Musk and PREVENT your putting up solar and passive hot water, so HE can mow down mountains of lithium in Afghanistan and fail to cut carbon, as any scientist with a crayon can predict.
But good news? Maybe we didn’t need to so much?
Snow in UK in May, coldest on record, stiff snow incoming.
Record snow for May in Switzerland
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/late-winter_record-may-snowfall-in-some-parts-of-switzerland/44941678
Record snow in Saudi Arabia:
I am constantly frustrated (but not surprised) but the number of people who believe with all their heart that a shift to ‘renewables’ is not only possible but can be done without missing a beat of our energy-intensive, high-tech world. This seems to be the result of several factors: hope, misguided terminology (e.g. ‘clean’ energy), and reduction of cognitive dissonance–to name a few. Many fail to understand that we cannot keep chasing the infinite growth chalice pushed on us by corporate/government institutions but need to reduce our energy consumption significantly, and this means forfeiting a whole host of ‘conveniences’ and sociocultural ‘norms’ (expectations?).
Most people I know personally aren’t even aware of the conundrum, and would rather not know. As Nietzsche suggested, “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”You know what’s cute, Olduvai, many if not most of those people grew up in and lived through times when energy use was 30-50% of what it is now. And the realization that they cannot recognize that, and that they were perfectly happy with half the energy they use now, is, I think, really all there is to know.
Yes, let’s focus on all the wasted energy – all lost wandering around the electrical grid that spans the whole western US, all the energy wasted shipping cheap shoddy pointless plastic across oceans, all the “consumer” items nobody really wants. All that shopping therapy that doesn’t really make anyone happier. All the ads, all the spread out reach of commuting. Wasted energy, it’s like writing checks because there are still checks in the check book with no bothering with the debt mounting.
We really do live in a time of sorrow. Does your accumulated waste/stuff own you or do you really own it?
I think many people are already looking to down size, and not just seniors. Lets talk about Live Simply, so Others may Simply Live.
So yes, lets say Stop producing Waste. This consumer/capitalist world is happy to over produce and sell to the US, and we know we need the newest most wonderful up-to-date gadgets, because the ads tell us that we will be better for it.
I keep hoping the world economy will crash to lower shipping and trucking use of fuel. But it’s more than that, we do need to make a push to stop wasting so much, living like there is no tomrrow. All the young Gretas are right to speak out and call out their elders.
What happened to securing a better future for our children and grandchildren?
There will be more on this. One one side, after we moved from farms to offices, we did not need more than two children per family. We could not sustain 7.7E9 people without synthetic fertilizers (NH3) and the wonders petroleum and coal energy bring. On the other side, MORE energy will allow us to reverse a lot of the positive entropy that so contaminates our shrinking world.
The Tokamak has been a ridiculous waste of money; better things are coming. For techies, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJAQIWEyzY Even these people are only just beginning to see what is ahead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.