The folly of wind and solar as energy sources

[cc]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-the-not-so-green-results-coming-out-of-green-alternatives">GUNTER: The not-so-green results coming out of green alternatives



I call it magic wand thinking; the idea that all a government has to do to replace fossil fuels with "green" alternatives is wave a magic wand (and a few trillion dollars) and – presto! – the world will have a low-carbon future.





 

Whatever one thinks of the climate change/global warming theory (and I don't think much of it), the practical problem of converting developing countries to low-carbon (or net-zero) economies is far more daunting than eco-obsessed politicians such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will admit, even to themselves.



https://blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Justin-dim-bulb.jpg">



For the most part, the technology doesn't yet exist to keep the lights on, the heat heating, and goods and people moving using mostly "green" energy. It's a matter of engineering, not of too few subsidies.



There are huge reliability problems with wind, solar and biofuels that simply will not go away anytime soon.



For instance, electric vehicles just won't go very far in a cold Canadian winter. It's not possible to replace a diesel pickup with an e-vehicle if you have to drive 300 kilometres to a pumping station in the northern bush in the middle of January.





Nor, in a country as large as Canada, are most people who are driving to distant relatives' willing to stop every 300 kms for an hour or more to charge their car's battery.



During particularly snowy winters, rooftop solar panels can become covered, reducing their output. How do you heat your home then? Hook up a preachy bicycle commuter to a pedal-power generator in your basement?



Whether or not you believe recent droughts, wildfires and heatwaves are signs of a dangerously changing climate or merely natural variations in weather, this was a bad week for the notion that going "green" is easy.





For instance, the Wall Street Journal reported on a study by Fengqi You, a professor of energy systems engineering at Cornell University, that shows the production of solar panels consumes huge amounts of electricity.



And since most panels installed in North America and western Europe are made in China, and since China uses the dirtiest coal to generate most of its power (and is building at least seven new coal-fired power plants a year), the solar panels that environmentalists insist are so vital to ending the climate "crisis" actually generate more emissions over their lifecycle than simply powering our homes using natural gas or other fossil fuels.



It reminds me of a study last year showing that mining and manufacturing wind turbines and the concrete bases that anchor them make wind power as emissions-intensive as fossil fuels.



(Don't forget, either, that most materials in Chinese solar panels are produced by Uyghurs in western China who are forced to choose between working in mines or processing plants or being sent to re-education camps.)



[And none of the above includes the utter folly of becoming dependent on undependable winds and sun]

[Anonymous]

I read about Canadians want their federal government to take action on climate change..



They probably don't understand that action means other countries producing energy instead of us.

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

[cc]

Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

And with the misguided efforts he is using and abusing, it never will

[Frood]

What do you care... really... or why should you. He consistently pursues a depopulation measure.... lulz

[cc]

The reply was to "The climate needle hasn't budged"  .. to which I care a lot Period



I alone will determine what I care about  and I ask for no assistance

[Frood]

False narrative though...

[Anonymous]

Trudeau's plan to "fight climate change" is to make Canadians poorer. The making Canadians poor part is working. The climate needle hasn't budged.

Trudeau's climate goals are the height of insanity. They are also treasonous.

[Anonymous]

In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105?mc_cid=4ca9f7e579&mc_eid=1986a05a04&fbclid=IwAR3teiX65m4S33AiHdbIS84i-Jc9QpECcrZHJfPs5TCjUED_e17msgoA6cE">https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops ... 17msgoA6cE">https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105?mc_cid=4ca9f7e579&mc_eid=1986a05a04&fbclid=IwAR3teiX65m4S33AiHdbIS84i-Jc9QpECcrZHJfPs5TCjUED_e17msgoA6cE

[Anonymous]

Natural gas is where it's at.



https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/09/wind-and-solar-power-cant-drive-down-global-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3DGhBBPcKU8VEZn-RsiS7_neLnCE-OYrNjRnqRnswsQdhmEbFT52EUrdY">https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/09/wind-and- ... bFT52EUrdY">https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/09/wind-and-solar-power-cant-drive-down-global-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3DGhBBPcKU8VEZn-RsiS7_neLnCE-OYrNjRnqRnswsQdhmEbFT52EUrdY

A study last year by the Manhattan Institute, an independent New York-based think-tank, found that replacing the energy output of a single 100-megawatt natural gas-fuelled power plant requires a minimum of twenty 170-metre-tall windmills, together occupying 10 square miles (25.9 square kilometres) of land. Building that wind farm requires 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete and 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics (mainly for the mammoth blades).



Moreover, the wind farm can only replace the natural gas plant's power when the wind is blowing sufficiently. Making the wind farm's power output reliable would require the storage capacity of 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries. Mining the minerals to produce those batteries would consume huge amounts of fossil fuel to power the heavy equipment, not to mention imposing severe environmental and social impacts. By comparison, building that natural gas-fuelled power plant requires less than 10 per cent of the raw materials required for the wind farm and, once built, it occupies just a few acres of land – about 1/1,000th the land area of the wind farm. And it saves large numbers of eagles and other birds from being killed by windmill blades.



What about solar panels? The Manhattan Institute report includes U.S. Department of Energy data showing that the material requirements to produce a given amount of solar energy are some 60 per cent higher even than for wind turbines. And, to make them reliable sources of power 24-hours-a-day, solar farms would also need all those storage batteries. In reality, because mass battery storage is unachievable in practical or economic terms, wind and solar facilities all need to be backed up by a reliable power source that can kick in when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. In North America, that source is almost always natural gas. So we need more natural gas even as we frantically build wind and solar farms!



Demand for crude oil in non-OECD countries will increase from 51.7 to 58.3 million barrels per day over the next five years. Shifting as much as possible of that increasing energy consumption to natural gas is the only realistic way of arresting CO2 emissions growth in those countries.



Tweet

Clearly, building wind and solar farms that could replace the 84 per cent of global energy currently supplied by fossil fuels is technically impossible and would be very damaging to the environment. Moreover, the colossal costs of trying to do so would drive electricity prices to what, for most people, would be ruinous levels.



There is still another compelling reason why wind and solar are not the answer to reducing global emissions. Just 1.3 billion of the Earth's 7.9 billion inhabitants live in advanced economies where those costly investments might even be possible. Most of the other 6.6 billion are striving to lift themselves out of poverty, largely by increasing their access to fossil fuels. That's why almost all of the current increase in oil and coal demand is occurring in non-OECD countries.



For example, the International Energy Agency in this report estimates that crude oil demand in OECD countries will increase by just 1.5 million barrels per day over the next five years, while demand in non-OECD countries will increase from 51.7 to 58.3 million barrels per day. Shifting as much as possible of that increasing energy consumption to natural gas is the only realistic way of arresting CO2 emissions growth in those countries.

[Anonymous]

Reliance on renewable energy, mainly wind, has left the country heavily dependent on imported natural gas for electricity when the wind doesn't blow. UK natural gas prices have risen more than fivefold over the year to €73.10 a MWh, equivalent to $84.83.

[Anonymous]

There aint going to be a jobs boom building powerlines carrying power created from wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Sorry folks, Jim Crow Joe lied to you.



Wind and solar folly in detail

https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/29/wind-and-solar-folly-in-detail/?fbclid=IwAR0km52QSJVuxdFrsITY5f-FnDtsNfV42jidNhI0IY9KKtZf0Foncvds5yE">https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/29/wind-a ... Foncvds5yE">https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/29/wind-and-solar-folly-in-detail/?fbclid=IwAR0km52QSJVuxdFrsITY5f-FnDtsNfV42jidNhI0IY9KKtZf0Foncvds5yE



The Lower 48 states of the US cover four time zones. The sun sets in California about 3 hours after the sun sets in New York. One must wonder if the folks running the government in Washington DC are aware of this. President Joe Biden's plan for a climate-friendly electric grid depends on his administration's ability to construct thousands of miles of power lines to bring energy from the wind and the sun across the nation.



This is intended to meet the democrat's goal of eliminating the power sector's carbon dioxide emissions. Their purpose is to save the world from predictions made by mathematical equations saying the Earth might warm a few degrees ending life as we know it.



New transmission lines will be required to carry wind and solar power across the country to replace electricity previously supplied from coal and natural gas. As the sun sets in New York and their wind calms, California may be able to keep Manhattan's lights on for a few more hours before all goes dark. There are however other major problems.



Eric Wolfe writing at politico.com [1] pointed out the tremendous local opposition encountered constantly to high-voltage transmission lines. Efforts by power companies to build these long-range transmission lines have failed repeatedly in recent decades. They become mired in legal and political fights from the opposition of states and communities along the projects' paths.



In fact, Wolf's article failed to point out that all sources of energy and all means of transmission/transportation of energy are regularly opposed by people who call themselves environmentalists. It would appear they yearn for life in mid nineteenth century when heating was with wood, air conditioning non existent and transportation was by horse.



Nuclear energy has long been stifled by opposition based on unsubstantiated fear and there is a war against all fossil fuels because of global warming said to stem from the odorless, colorless, life-giving gas CO2.



Let me remind all readers, we are not just talking fuel for Transportation but the capacity to create Electricity, Cook our food, Heat and cool our homes, Manufacture everything, fertilize Agriculture, create most Products and provide Sanitation. Mark Mathis at Clear Energy alliance.com is campaigning to end the use of the term fossil fuel and replace it with the acronym TECHMAPS which holds the initials of each of the most important things for which we use petroleum products.



Industrial wind machines are opposed by neighbors on the grounds of deep vibrating sound, shadow flicker, and ugliness. Solar panels that spread out over huge tracts of land render the land unsuitable for farming.



To make hydropower useful, you have to have a large flow of water, a big change in elevation, and a huge lake to store the water. The lake floods huge areas, much to the consternation of environmentalists. To grow energy crops, such as corn for ethanol, requires water, fertilizer, and pesticides, all annoying to the average environmentalists.



We all know that pipelines for carrying oil or natural gas meet opposition wherever they are proposed. The most notable one is the Keystone pipeline, which after years of struggle has been canceled by the brain trust in Washington. Yet railroad tank cars and tanker trucks which are far more dangerous than pipelines, also regularly meet opposition.



Transmitting electricity from place to place requires cables. The greater the distance the power must be transmitted, the higher the transmission voltage has to be. The more the sources are spread out, the greater becomes the web of transmission lines, and the greater the number of lawsuits brought by environmentalists.



Environmentalist nannies tell us to turn down the thermostat, eat raw vegetables, stop eating food that came from distant places, drive less, take the stairs instead of the elevator, and so forth.



In other words, the battle against power lines is just another skirmish in the larger war against energy production, transport and use. It is a fair bet that 80% of the environmental road blockers are democrats but don't expect them to back down for President Biden's master plan for using only wind and sun to run our country.



The hypothetical wind/solar grid (ignore its impossibility) that is being promoted is not—repeat, not—a source of electricity. Like any utility's grid, "the grid" merely delivers electricity from where it is generated to where it is used by virtue of transmission lines. Some might require a million volts of direct current (dc),for noon solar power to be delivered from Arizona to New York, Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta.



The real problem, however, is that even on this



grid, every source of energy must be able to provide power all the time, because the requirement for every grid is 99.9% reliability. When the current on the grid is lowered a tiny amount automatic circuit breakers shut down throughout the system and in a very few minutes the entire system shuts down to save itself. Catastrophic destruction occurs throughout the system and weeks are required to put the grid back in operation. February in



Texas this year escaped that situation only by about 5 minutes as they cut off power to enough companies and locations to get back in balance.



Regardless of these incontrovertible facts, Wolff quoted from Biden's recent address to Congress:



"My American Jobs Plan will put hundreds of thousands of people to work — hundred [sic] of thousands of people to work — line workers, electricians, and laborers — laying thousands of miles of transmission line; building a modern, resilient, and fully clean grid," he said.



Ideally, the utilities and the grid would have very few employees, because everybody on the payroll costs consumers money. The purpose of utilities is to provide the highest quality, most reliable electricity at the lowest cost, not to have the most employees. Providing electrical power is a service, not a make-work project.



And what, precisely, is unclean about the present grid? We can hardly wait to see the "modern" wires.



Even a bigger problem is that building long transmission lines has always been hampered by what developers call the "three P's": planning, permitting, and paying for it. "These long-haul transmission lines take eight to 10 years to build," said Lauren Azar, a transmission expert and former DOE adviser and Wisconsin state commissioner. "And we as a nation don't even have the right planning processes right now to identify the right transmission that is needed." Simply put, while you will continue to see large groups of wind turbines and solar collectors proliferate across our nation on your tax dollar, they will never make up a significant portion of our nations energy utilization no matter who is in the Whitehouse.

[Anonymous]

What have we got to show for green crony capitalism? Massive inflation and a critical shortage of energy. Good going greentards.



https://rclutz.com/2021/10/02/beware-the-green-bubble-popping/?fbclid=IwAR1FlxE4cpDxHnMOVCZCRhcaapetFePyKq_gqC3QvO_GFXZm3BN1-IpPbqE">https://rclutz.com/2021/10/02/beware-th ... BN1-IpPbqE">https://rclutz.com/2021/10/02/beware-the-green-bubble-popping/?fbclid=IwAR1FlxE4cpDxHnMOVCZCRhcaapetFePyKq_gqC3QvO_GFXZm3BN1-IpPbqE

Prices for all energy commodities jumped during the past month, some by record margins, as a global energy shortage set off a scramble for gas, coal and oil. Brent crude has doubled in the past year, Newcastle coal has quadrupled, and Netherlands natural has risen seven-fold.  There are many small reasons for the global energy squeeze, and one big one:



Investment in hydrocarbons has collapsed under pressure from the Green agenda adopted by international consensus.



Energy investment in the United States has dwindled as large institutional investors boycott fossil fuel investments.

The political pressure of the Green agenda has virtually wiped out investment in the US oil and gas industry. Capital expenditures for US exploration and development companies during 2021 (and projected for 2022) are only a fifth of the 2015 peak of $150 billion.



Meanwhile, oil and gas companies are sitting on mountains of cash. The free cash flow of the oil and gas industry will rise to $50 billion next year, the highest on record. In 2015 the oil and gas industry showed negative free cash flow because it borrowed to expand production.



Now oil and gas companies are paying down debt and returning cash to shareholders rather than take hydrocarbons out of the ground.



But the energy market suggests that the hard reality of supply constraints will overwhelm the Green agenda before it gets started.

[Anonymous]

The energy crisis that has led to shortages and blackouts in Europe and Asia could hit the United States this winter, said the CEO of an energy firm.



"We've actually had discussions with power utilities who are concerned that they simply will have to implement blackouts this winter," Ernie Thrasher, the head of Xcoal Energy & Resources, was quoted by Bloomberg News as saying. "They don't see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand."



He added that utilities are switching from natural gas to coal during the fall and winter months to keep up with the demand.



The global demand for power has increased as economies attempt to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering natural gas shortages primarily in Europe and Asia.



Power producers including Duke Energy have warned customers that bills may spike during this winter. Duke's Piedmont Natural Gas unit stated Tuesday that higher gas prices and low production will raise customer bills by approximately $11 per month in North and South Carolina.

[Gaon]

The energy crisis that has led to shortages and blackouts in Europe and Asia could hit the United States this winter, said the CEO of an energy firm.



"We've actually had discussions with power utilities who are concerned that they simply will have to implement blackouts this winter," Ernie Thrasher, the head of Xcoal Energy & Resources, was quoted by Bloomberg News as saying. "They don't see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand."



He added that utilities are switching from natural gas to coal during the fall and winter months to keep up with the demand.



The global demand for power has increased as economies attempt to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering natural gas shortages primarily in Europe and Asia.



Power producers including Duke Energy have warned customers that bills may spike during this winter. Duke's Piedmont Natural Gas unit stated Tuesday that higher gas prices and low production will raise customer bills by approximately $11 per month in North and South Carolina.

Biden and Trudeau foolishly block energy development.