Fossil Fuels are a Hell of a Lot More Sustainable Than Wind and Solar

[Breakfall]

You're full of shit Herman. Everyone knows that solar is a sustainable energy resource. It blows my mind that fuckheads like you push to disprove such a resource? Maybe if you had my science degree you wouldn't be such a fucking idiot. Yeah? Fuck off!

You don't know jack. It is the most environmentally destructive useless form of energy on the planet. Stopping drinking the Kool Aid and pull your head out of your arse. It uses more resources including land that are finite than real energy sources like fossils and nuclear. It's environmental footprint per kilowatt hour is a hell of a lot higher than real energy sources. It requires natural gas to back it up. It costs consumers more. It does not lower emissions.



I could go on if you like. I think will all go right over your head.

How old  are you that you confidently made that proclamation? Dude...I will drill your fucking mind arsehole. Herman...Im smarter than you!

[Breakfall]

Where is this racist motherfucker? I will punch in his front teeth and make him fragile for the rest of his fucking life! Fucking southern faggot!

[Breakfall]

The problem with you Americans, is that you'll get your face knocked the fuck in! You've been watching too much Hollywood!

[DKG]

Breakfall, Herman and Oliver are correct. Wind and solar are not concentrated energy sources. They cannot come remotely close to replacing real energy sources like nuclear or fossils. 



I'll give you an example.



Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana's 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.



or





Solar panels on Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde's output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.



Delving more deeply, generating 20% of U.S. electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare-earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% to 80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.



Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons (461 billion tons) of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel, and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products, and shipped around the world.



And they still require natural gas to support them.



Is this responsible use of precious rare earth metals, land and water to produce to so little electricity? They are also produce so much toxic waste, throughout their lifecycle. They require a lot of cement production which is a major emitter of CO2.



If you take a look at this when you are sober and keep an open mind you will know that wind and solar is being by selfish interests. There is nothing in it for us except sky high energy costs, full toxic landfills and blackouts.

[Breakfall]

Breakfall, Herman and Oliver are correct. Wind and solar are not concentrated energy sources. They cannot come remotely close to replacing real energy sources like nuclear or fossils. 



I'll give you an example.



Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana's 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.



or



Hold on a sec! None of you have my education. You're dumb as fuck essentially...place your argument now!

Solar panels on Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde's output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.



Delving more deeply, generating 20% of U.S. electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare-earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% to 80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.



Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons (461 billion tons) of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel, and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products, and shipped around the world.



And they still require natural gas to support them.



Is this responsible use of precious rare earth metals, land and water to produce to so little electricity? They are also produce so much toxic waste, throughout their lifecycle. They require a lot of cement production which is a major emitter of CO2.



If you take a look at this when you are sober and keep an open mind you will know that wind and solar is being by selfish interests. There is nothing in it for us except sky high energy costs, full toxic landfills and blackouts.

[Breakfall]

You people are insane!

[Breakfall]

I can disprove your bullshit every day of the week. You're an uneducated minority trying to rise up against me. None of you have my education. To me...you're fucking imbeciles.

[Breakfall]

It's fucking sickening that a member(s) here are allowed to broadcast such tripe on multiple forum boards without being checked! I have the qualifications to do just that!

[Breakfall]

It's fucking sickening that a member(s) here are allowed to broadcast such tripe on multiple forum boards without being checked! I have the qualifications to do just that!

[Oliver Clotheshoffe]

Except when it's raining.

That's elementary. It blows my mind that I'm an Appliied Scientist and I have to deal with midlife idiots without qualification!

That's 'Applied' there Einstein  ac_lmfao

[Breakfall]

That's elementary. It blows my mind that I'm an Appliied Scientist and I have to deal with midlife idiots without qualification!

That's 'Applied' there Einstein  ac_lmfao

Thanks chief...misplaced my reading glasses!  ac_biggrin

[Herman]

Another gem here from my buddy Alex Epstein.



Myth: Solar and wind are helping save our grid from extreme heat

Truth: Preferences for S+W have made our grid embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves—and cold snaps—that a fossil-fueled grid could easily manage.



Myth: Solar and wind are helping save our grid from extreme heat caused by fossil-fueled climate change.



Truth: Preferences for S+W have made our grid embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves—and cold snaps—that a fossil-fueled grid could easily manage.



A recent Bloomberg story, "In Texas Heat Wave, ACs Keep Humming on Renewable Power" captures an increasingly popular argument: fossil-fueled climate change is causing overwhelming heat waves, while solar and wind are coming to the rescue with abundant electricity.



All wrong.¹



Myth: Fossil-fueled climate change is causing heat waves that our grids will inevitably have trouble handling.



Truth: The amount of warming that has occurred—about 2°F in 100 years—wouldn't challenge a grid fueled by fossil fuels and other reliable, resilient fuel sources.



The wide-ranging potential for extreme heat in California or Texas and the extreme cold potential in Texas every few decades is far greater than the slow-moving changes in climate. An extreme heat wave and high electricity demand in summer are not unexpected for grid planners.



Around the world, countries use fossil fuels to deliver reliable electricity under heat and cold extremes beyond what we face in the US.



As the wealthiest country in the world, obviously, the US could replicate this.



The cause is obviously something other than fossil fuels.



An example of fossil-fueled electricity thriving in extremely hot weather: Singapore, which has both growing electricity demand and temperatures comparable to those of African countries like Chad and the Ivory Coast.²



An example of fossil-fueled electricity thriving in extremely cold weather:



During the cold week that overwhelmed Texas's solar-and-wind-favoring grid, causing blackouts, the weatherized coal and gas infrastructure in Alberta, Canada was able to handle far colder temperatures than Texas.³



No conceivable warming of the planet could cause heat waves that would be a problem for a grid that's committed to reliable electricity. Just invest enough in reliable sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear, and any necessary weatherization infrastructure.



The reason that Texas and the rest of the US are having trouble meeting electricity demand that should be no problem is the obvious: policies that punish reliable fossil fuels and nuclear while privileging unreliable solar and wind.



Electricity Emergency

ALEX EPSTEIN

·

SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

Electricity Emergency

America's grid is in decline and about to get far worse due to policies that 1) reward unreliable electricity, 2) prematurely shut down coal plants, 3) criminalize nuclear, and 4) force electric vehicle use. Here's what's happening and how to fix it.



Read full story

Myth: The Texas winter blackouts were a failure of fossil fuels, especially natural gas.



Truth: Fossil fuels perform great in far worse winter weather than Texas had in 2021. Texas blackouts were caused by defunding fossil fuel resiliency to pay for unreliable solar and wind.

https://energytalkingpoints.com/texas-electricity-crisis/



Myth: Fossil fuels are making electricity unreliable via "extreme weather"—so we need to use solar and wind.



Truth: Fossil fuels can provide reliable electricity even under the most speculative extremes—whereas unreliable solar and wind alone can't provide it under any conditions.



The latest attempt to pretend that fossil fuels are causing electricity problems that can only be solved by solar and wind is to dishonestly fixate on the moments during a heatwave when solar and wind happen to produce electricity and ignore (the many more) moments they don't.⁴





Myth: Solar and wind are saving Texas during heat waves because they happened to produce a lot of energy portions of a few hot days.



Truth: Preferences for unreliable solar and wind—which are often low when needed the most—have made Texas embarrassingly vulnerable to heat waves (and cold snaps).



Bloomberg: "Texas may be known for its oil and natural gas, but as temperatures breach 100F across the state for a full two weeks, it's wind and solar power that's helping keep residents cool."



This "journalism" is false solar and wind propaganda that should be retracted.



Bloomberg: "Texas may be known for its oil and natural gas, but... for a full two weeks, it's been wind and solar power that helped keep residents cool."



False: Solar and wind provided higher than average unreliable electricity that totally depended on reliable gas, coal, and nuclear.⁵





Bloomberg: "Green-power sources contributed about a third of total output Wednesday."



This is blatant cherry-picking: taking an unusually good day of sunlight and wind and pretending it can be generalized. Also, the unreliable output was 100% dependent on fossil-fueled life support.



Even during the period of unusually high solar and wind that Bloomberg cherry-picked to claim "ACs Keep Humming on Renewable Power," solar and wind at times provided < 20% of Texas electricity. Of course, that portion of the time didn't make the Bloomberg story.





Solar and wind haven't supported the Texas power grid even for a day—and can't. Solar goes to zero every hot night, delivering nothing to air conditioning, and wind frequently cycles from <20% to >60% of its supposed "capacity." (More accurately called "fantasy.")



Bloomberg: "grid officials have only had to ask consumers to conserve energy on one day since extreme temperatures descended on the Lone Star State"



A proper grid focused on reliability should almost never "ask consumers to conserve energy." Its job is to meet all demand.



"We've seen record demand, but we've also got quite a bit of wind and solar producing. While demand is really high, so is supply." —Bloomberg "expert" celebrating that solar and wind happen to help meet demand. Reliable sources always match high demand with high supply.



Bloomberg: "In just three years, oil-rich Texas has added the solar equivalent of 12 nuclear reactors"



There is no "solar equivalent of nuclear reactors." Nuclear reactors work all the time, including at night. Solar often doesn't work during the day and never works at night.



It is embarrassing that Texas and the US more broadly are having trouble providing enough electricity during heat waves and cold snaps.



And it is despicable that the media are ignoring the anti-reliability policies causing the problem and instead praising unreliable solar and wind.

[Herman]

Good on Doug Ford. Common sense shit.



The age of energy ideology is over in Ontario, replaced by power pragmatism.  The Ontario government's new and ambitious plan to meet the province's power needs until 2050 draws on pretty much every known technology to meet a demand for power that could double by that year.



One doesn't have to look too far back to remember the era of overhyped and overpriced wind and solar projects that former premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government was so eager to foist off on Ontarians. Across the province, the countryside is scarred with wind farms and solar installations. It was the sort of approach that a government could toy with, knowing that the province had surplus power so it didn't need to rely on wind and solar.



In the early days of electric vehicle enthusiasm, people were told that we could handle a massive increase in power consumption without needing a massive increase in generation and transmission. That optimistic notion has been proven wrong. With population expansion and the expected mass electrification of automobiles and home heating, it's time to get real.



The PC plan, released this week, dares to put new emphasis on nuclear energy, the technology that already provides 51 per cent of the province's power. Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith has announced preliminary work to add a new reactor at the Bruce nuclear plant on the shore of Lake Huron. The existing nuclear station there is already the world's largest, with a 6,550-megawatt capacity. The proposed new reactor will add 4,800 megawatts more and is the first new full-scale reactor in Ontario in 30 years.



Ontario is also pushing forward with a new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) that are quicker to build. Work is already underway on a small reactor at the province's Darlington nuclear site. It will be the first SMR in a G7 country. Smith is adding three more small reactors to that plan, enough in total to generate 1,200 megawatts. That is sufficient to power 1.2-million homes.



What's remarkable about the nuclear announcements of the last week is how uncontroversial they have been. Nuclear has gone from completely out of fashion to the most practical way to provide large quantities of predictable, emissions-free power.



Ontario's plan has received some criticism from environmentalists for not including a net-zero target or promise. While net zero is a popular gimmick, Ontario's power grid is already 90-per-cent emissions free. The important thing is not to squeeze out those last few emissions by a target date, but to double electricity supply while gradually decarbonizing the system. The benefits of widespread electrification outweigh marginal emissions from power generation.



In the short term, the biggest threat to the timely execution of Ontario's power plan is the federal government's Impact Assessment Act, which is designed to measure the environmental, social, economic and cultural heritage aspects of major projects. Approvals take years.

[DKG]

Good on Doug Ford. Common sense shit.



The age of energy ideology is over in Ontario, replaced by power pragmatism.  The Ontario government's new and ambitious plan to meet the province's power needs until 2050 draws on pretty much every known technology to meet a demand for power that could double by that year.



One doesn't have to look too far back to remember the era of overhyped and overpriced wind and solar projects that former premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government was so eager to foist off on Ontarians. Across the province, the countryside is scarred with wind farms and solar installations. It was the sort of approach that a government could toy with, knowing that the province had surplus power so it didn't need to rely on wind and solar.



In the early days of electric vehicle enthusiasm, people were told that we could handle a massive increase in power consumption without needing a massive increase in generation and transmission. That optimistic notion has been proven wrong. With population expansion and the expected mass electrification of automobiles and home heating, it's time to get real.



The PC plan, released this week, dares to put new emphasis on nuclear energy, the technology that already provides 51 per cent of the province's power. Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith has announced preliminary work to add a new reactor at the Bruce nuclear plant on the shore of Lake Huron. The existing nuclear station there is already the world's largest, with a 6,550-megawatt capacity. The proposed new reactor will add 4,800 megawatts more and is the first new full-scale reactor in Ontario in 30 years.



Ontario is also pushing forward with a new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) that are quicker to build. Work is already underway on a small reactor at the province's Darlington nuclear site. It will be the first SMR in a G7 country. Smith is adding three more small reactors to that plan, enough in total to generate 1,200 megawatts. That is sufficient to power 1.2-million homes.



What's remarkable about the nuclear announcements of the last week is how uncontroversial they have been. Nuclear has gone from completely out of fashion to the most practical way to provide large quantities of predictable, emissions-free power.



Ontario's plan has received some criticism from environmentalists for not including a net-zero target or promise. While net zero is a popular gimmick, Ontario's power grid is already 90-per-cent emissions free. The important thing is not to squeeze out those last few emissions by a target date, but to double electricity supply while gradually decarbonizing the system. The benefits of widespread electrification outweigh marginal emissions from power generation.



In the short term, the biggest threat to the timely execution of Ontario's power plan is the federal government's Impact Assessment Act, which is designed to measure the environmental, social, economic and cultural heritage aspects of major projects. Approvals take years.

The problem with this is that most of it will not be funded and built until after the next provincial election. Both the Liberals and NDP oppose SMR's. They are determined to repeat costly wind and solar mistakes which have driven electricity costs in Ontario through the roof.

[Herman]

My buddy Alex Epstein on the true cost of wind and solar.



The ultimate debunking of "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels."

I've identified, for the first time, the root fallacy behind the all the claims that "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels."



Myth: Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels



Truth: Solar and wind are only cheaper than fossil fuels in at most a small fraction of situations. For the overwhelming majority of the world's energy needs, solar and wind are either completely unable to replace fossil fuels or far more expensive.



We incessantly hear claims that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels:



The World Economic Forum characterizes "renewables" as "the world's cheapest source of energy"



"Renewables: Cheapest form of power" says the UN.



All such claims involve a dangerous fallacy I call "false generalization."¹





Why we should be suspicious of the pervasive claim that "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels"

Observe that "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels" is usually invoked, not to encourage competition but to justify coercive government policies to punish fossil fuel use and favor solar and wind.



Observe that the same people claiming "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels" moved heaven and earth to demand at minimum hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies under the "Inflation Reduction Act" for these supposedly "cheaper forms of energy."²



On its face, justifying favoritism toward solar and wind by invoking their cheapness is highly suspicious. If they're cheaper, why do they need coercive policies to throttle their fossil-fueled competitors (e.g., opposing fossil fuel investment, production, and pipelines) and reward solar and wind?



If a company has a TV set that's as good as others, but cheaper, they win by selling their cheaper TVs on the market.



They don't ask government to ban other TVs, to mandate their TV, or to give them hundreds of billions of dollars.



Truly cheaper products don't need preferences.



The simple reason that advocates of solar and wind who claim they are cheaper than fossil fuels aren't willing to outcompete fossil fuels in reality but instead demand massive government favoritism is that in the vast majority of circumstances solar and wind are not actually cheaper.



If solar and wind were cheaper, much-hated fossil fuel use wouldn't still be growing

That solar and wind aren't actually cheaper than fossil fuels should be obvious from the fact that despite enormous cultural and political hostility toward fossil fuels that makes fossil fuels artificially expensive, fossil fuel use is still growing.



Notably, fossil fuel growth is centered in the places that care most about cheap energy, above all China—which is using record amounts of coal to produce the solar panels and wind turbines we use. If solar and wind were cheaper they'd use solar and wind to produce solar and wind.³





When China is concerned about its grid reliability, it starts building more coal power plants, not more solar and wind farms, to boost supply. In late 2022, the Chinese government permitted about 2 new coal plants a week.⁴





China, despite being the world's leading producer of solar and wind (using coal) is also using record amounts of oil. Why not just use solar and wind instead, since "solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels"?



Because solar and wind aren't cheaper. In most cases, they're totally incapable of replacing oil.⁵



To deny the blatant reality that solar and wind cannot outcompete fossil fuels, opponents of fossil fuels use a fallacy I've never seen anyone identify in this context: "false generalization"—taking something that's true in rare circumstances and falsely generalizing it to all circumstances.



The fallacy of false generalization

Claims that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels take rare use-cases in which solar and wind are, or might be, cheaper and then falsely generalize that they are always cheaper—even though they're usually expensive or impossible.



When discussing "energy prices" we must recognize that "energy" refers to myriad specific use-cases involving different



Types of machines



Reliability requirements



Locations



Quantities



For the vast majority of use-cases solar and wind can't compete with fossil fuels.



Types of machines, solar and wind vs. fossil fuels

For most types of machines we use today—which burn fossil fuels directly for transportation, industrial heat, or residential heat—solar and wind can't come close to competing with fossil fuels. Yet they are portrayed as generally "cheaper"!



While it is very common to use the terms "energy" and "electricity" interchangeably, the fact is that the vast majority of machines in the world today don't run on electricity—they run on the direct burning of fossil fuels, because that is the only or cheapest way to run them.



The top 4 types of machines, by energy use, are: transportation machines that burn fossil fuels, all machines that use electricity—using multiple fuels, (including 60% fossil fuels globally), industrial heat machines that burn fossil fuels, and residential/commercial heat machines that burn fossil fuels.⁶





The reason the vast majority of the world's machines today use the direct burning of fossil fuels, instead of electricity (from any source) is cost-effectiveness. Direct burning is the only way to power many transport machines, and the cheapest way to power many heating machines.



Oil, the densest fossil fuel, is a highly-concentrated yet stable energy source. This makes it uniquely good for transport, which benefits from as much energy per pound as possible. In some cases, e.g., airplanes and cargo ships, there's no real electric alternative to oil at any cost.



Solar and wind advocates sometimes promote battery-powered ships and airplanes, dishonestly ignoring the fact that these are costly showcases incapable of cost-effective transcontinental flights and long-distance transport, which is the lifeblood of our global economy.⁷





For airplanes and cargo ships, solar and wind aren't just not cheaper than fossil fuels," they are infinitely expensive because they cannot do what fossil fuels can do.



E.g., they can't fly 200 people from LA to London or move 400 million lbs of cargo from Korea to Brazil at 25 MPH.



While the high levels of heat industry requires (e.g., for steel-making) and the lower levels of heat residential or commercial areas require can be provided by electricity, it is often far cheaper to burn fossil fuels directly vs. going from fuel to electricity to heat.



Even if solar and wind were somewhat cheaper than fossil fuels at providing electricity—which they rarely are, due to unreliability—they still would be expensive or impossible as replacements for fossil fuel heating and transport.



Yet they're portrayed as generally "cheaper"!



Anyone who promotes the idea of solar and wind being generally cheaper than fossil fuels for "energy" as such—when solar and wind electricity is obviously expensive and/or impossible for fossil fuels' non-electricity uses—is ignorant and/or incompetent and/or dishonest, and should be ignored.⁸