Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

Oh, don't get started on wind turbines....
In a speech tonight to House Republicans, Trump claimed that wind turbines cause cancer.

“They say the noise causes cancer,” the president of the United States asserted.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...krl21Nwk9V8NA9QCzWfHUcohsRoJy07enkY5gC1Hh6NT8

 

It says 'recoverable with current technologies' and there is never a guarantee anything is economically feasible. Even if oil was 10 cents a barrel there would remain a critical need for the stuff for many decades to come and will therefore be recovered to meet demand.

When it comes to oil and society's insatiable need for it, whether or not it's 'economically feasible' is a moot point...

 

You're harping about a non-issue? The US and others are DEPENDENT on oil! It makes no difference the cost. It is required to run our society. Until we replace oil with something else it is required no matter the cost. And yes the cost will rise and can have horrific impacts on the economy.

 

I was speaking primarily about fossil fueled vehicles and wondering if/when the US government and military will/can transition away from fossil fuels?

I also commented that I have no problem with coal fired power as long as we can scrub 99% of the harmful emissions.

And in parallel everyone needs to expand renewables...

 

If countries are dependent on oil, "required to run our society", can't be replaced, and its high cost "can have horrific impacts on our economy," then it's obviously not "a non-issue."

 

Already in the works to replace the Humvee and even armored vehicles.

https://www.army-technology.com/fea...e-rise-of-military-electric-vehicles-4809219/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willia...s-enamored-of-electric-vehicles/#3a7669e54660

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millio...-are-a-lifeline-for-ev-and-battery-companies/

Odds are the military will use a hybrid technology capable of much greater speeds over all terrain with very small diesel motors to keep the batteries initially. The move is towards "stealth" vehicles that are more difficult to target and destroy because they are faster moving targets without a "heat signature".

 

The U.S. military is likely prepping for peak oil and climate change.

 

Of course it's a non-issue because we require oil! It makes no difference how recoverable it might or the cost, etc. Until the US has less dependency on oil, like 50 years from now, people and the economy are forced to deal with oil and it's pollution and cost and scarcity, etc. The discussion is so stupid because we actually know the facts yet we will argue forever about EV's and renewables like they are some evil things...

 

The US government owns about 250,000 vehicles, the US postal service has about 220,000, and who knows how many are managed by the military?

I'm sure all of them have been tasked with investigating EV technology, and although we've had this technology for decades, what percentage of all the vehicles mentioned above have been converted? The USPS would have been the easiest to transition, and again although they are investigating EV technology, what percentage of their 220,000 vehicles have been converted? How many of the US government's 250,000 vehicles are simply run of the mill vehicles in which all of them should have been hybrid-electric or electric by now? It's no surprise they are 'involved' in EV technology but how long will it take them to realize 20-50% conversion and set an example for the nation?

 

Now you just making up nonsense!

Viable HYBRID vehicles have only been around for 2 decades and viable EV's have really only been available during our CURRENT decade.

The conversion rate of both hybrids and EV's as soon as they became commercially viable establishes that it will not be long before government agencies are embracing them. NYC police and taxis have already converted to hybrids because of the fuel savings.

 

It's the other way round: it's an issue because we require oil, and its cost makes a difference because the economy that uses that oil requires high energy returns. That oil, BTW, is needed to make EVs and components for renewables, among other things.

What makes this discussion senseless is that we keep fantasizing that EVs and renewables are created out of thin air!

 

Sounds like a real investment opportunity.

 

Generally, you won't find a cab in any big city that isn't a Camry or a Prius.

I once got a ride from O'Hare in a Prius. As the driver and I were comparing notes on our respective current and prior cars (both of us has had Crown Vics in our past) he noted that he paid off the note on his Prius in nine months just on the gas savings alone.

 

Given how much mileage cab drivers do I can see that happening. I had a neighbor who was a NYC cabbie with a Crown Vic and it was totaled in an accident. The car had 230,000 miles on it but it was only 4 years old so his insurance paid out what a 4 year old Crown Vic was worth at the time. Cabbies must love driving hybrids because of the fuel savings alone. Going from 12 mpg to 36 mpg must be a massive savings for them.

 

Maybe not cancer, but many other health problems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/health-effect-of-wind-turbines/

While sleep deprivation can be harmful to your health being annoyed is not a medical health condition, it is a mental health condition.

I have spent time living in areas where there are very high winds from different directions. These winds can come up in the middle of the night and can cause blinds to rattle and buzz and doors to slam. Is this annoying? Yes, but it does not rise to the level of sleep deprivation. Close the window, roll over and go back to sleep.

Are some people more sensitive than others? Probably in the same manner that some people are sensitive to light. Using earmuffs would probably be just as effective for those annoyed by wind sounds as using sleeping masks are effective for those annoyed by light pollution.

There is no conclusive evidence of actual health problems caused by wind turbines.

 

Does that black smoke look toxic?

 

A Brief History of Hybrid Cars
November 8, 2013
Hybrids seem like an overnight sensation, but the history of hybrid cars actually goes back to the eve of the 20th Century, beginning with Porche.




The history of hybrid cars stretches back over 100 years. Hybrid cars are defined as any car that runs on two sources of power. The most common hybrid powertrain combines a gasoline engine with an electric motor. These cars are known as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). While it may seem that hybrids are a recent phenomenon, the technology has been around since the creation of the automobile. In fact, auto manufacturers have been developing and building hybrids since the beginning of the auto industry.

The Beginning
The first hybrid car was built in the year 1899 by engineer Ferdinand Porsche. Called the System Lohner-Porsche Mixte, it used a gasoline engine to supply power to an electric motor that drove the car's front wheels. The Mixte was well-received, and over 300 were produced. The demand for hybrids began to wane, however, when Henry Ford started the first automobile assembly line in 1904. Ford's ability to produce gasoline-powered cars and offer them at low prices dramatically shrunk the hybrid vehicle market. While hybrids were produced well into the 1910s using the Mixte's technology, most sold poorly because they had higher prices and less power than their gasoline-powered counterparts. Hybrids soon became a thing of the past, beginning a nearly 50-year period where they were merely an afterthought.

Renewed Interest
In the 1960s, the United States congress introduced legislation that encouraged greater use of electric vehicles in an attempt to reduce air pollution. While the government tried to garner support for hybrids, renewed public interest didn't gain momentum until the Arab oil embargo of 1973. This oil crisis caused the price of gasoline to soar while supply fell dramatically. In those days, nearly 85 percent of all American workers drove to work, so soaring gas prices and declining supplies were a major concern.

Over the next 25 years, auto manufacturers spent billions of dollars on research and development of hybrid technologies. In spite of this, very few vehicles were produced that could both reduce the world's dependence on oil and compete with gasoline vehicles on price and performance. In the late 1990s, a handful of all-electric vehicles were introduced, the GM EV1 and Toyota RAV-4 EV being two examples. These all-electric vehicles failed to attract widespread interest, and were soon dropped from production. It wasn't until Toyota released the Prius in Japan in 1997 that a viable alternative to gas powered vehicles was introduced.

The Rebirth
In 1999, the Honda Insight became the first mass-production HEV released in the United States. The two-door, two-seat Insight may have been first, but it was the Toyota Prius sedan, released in the United States in 2000, that gave hybrid technology the foothold it was looking for. In the years since its United States introduction, the Prius has become synonymous with the term "hybrid." It is the most popular HEV ever produced, and auto manufacturers around the world have used its technology as a basis for countless other vehicles.

In this era of ever-increasing environmental awareness, the Prius may be in for some stiff competition. Honda released the second-generation Insight, and Chevrolet introduced of the Volt. As hybrid technology continues to improve, it will continue developing an even stronger foothold in the world's auto market. Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain, auto manufacturers will keep developing and building hybrids, just as they have all along.

 

Both a combustion vehicle and an EV or hybrid-electric require basically the same energy to produce. The key benefit is reducing fossil fuel use...

 

How can we know? We can guess investment costs but what will revenues/profits be? What happens 10 years down the road when battery technology allows 400-500 miles per charge? What if efficient onboard charging becomes a reality? What if the charging costs to consumers is too high? What if oil is selling for $10/barrel?

 

When the various cosulting engineers, contractors and facilities managers and command of the various military facilities in the Hampton Roads area (Norfolk, Porsmouth, Newport News, Chesapeake, Hampton, etc) wanted to have a conference regarding planning for rising sea levels due to global warming, they were blocked by then Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli.

Never the less, the standing water in the storm drains at low tide did not recede, and several neighborhoods in Norfolk had storm drains flooding onto the streets.

But the Republican legislature and the Attorney General were having none of it!

 

That's always the question with investments. But I'm very sure that this is the future.

The entire global industry is moving in that direction. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

The auto companies can instantly unload their two biggest regulatory issues, gas milage standards and clean air standards.

The regulatory markets in every first world country are pointing in that direction. And the charging infrastructure is spreading rapidly, and range is improving while costs fall.

The auto companies know that their business model is being up ended. They know that cars will essentially be technology platforms.

And they are going to stake their share before Tesla, Google, Apple and China steal it from them.

 

The energy returns from renewables are much lower, and similar to oil given the point that we are now resorting to shale, etc. Meanwhile, the world population is rising and a growing middle class (given a global capitalist economy) requires higher energy returns.

With that, there will no reduction in fossil fuel usage through the use of renewables.

 

There is also the tremendous improvement in mechanical reliability. Crown Vics (like most Fords of their vintage) went through brakes every 40K miles. A Pruis won't need front pads until 120K miles and they'll get to 160 before the rears need it.

Nothing else breaks at all. Nothing.

 

Yup, regenerative braking just makes so much more sense. Diesel engines in big trucks shut down the fuel flow in order to use engine braking as a fuel saving measure but can you imagine the regenerative power of all 18 wheels under deceleration? Currently these vehicles achieve something like 5 mpg. Just doubling that would halve the cost of fuel and the odds are they could do even better.

As you noted above, the brakes would last a great deal longer too.