On the Threshold of Renewable Energy Chaos

Still looking backwards?

VW's Power Day shows electric vehicles have arrived, but can it catch Tesla? (thedriven.io)

VW’s Power Day shows electric vehicles have arrived, but can it catch Tesla?

 

marketing =/= technology

 

Australian Financial Review Advises Readers to Embrace Climate Investments
Eric Worrall
According to the AFR, “You don’t want … a portfolio that has … companies that cannot make the transition.”. Just one problem – there will be no transition.

 

The contradictory Green policies to limit CO2 emissions
Charles Rotter
An excellent way to undermine Western economies is to render their power generation unreliable and expensive. That objective of Green thinking is progressively being achieved by Government policy throughout the…

 

What? Is the Sun going out?

 

Not achievable.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

 

Not achievable by Google on one process. But I am sure you could find more failure in green technologies. But brick walls to gather sunlight and store heat or Windows to collect sunlight will never fail.

 

Not achievable. There is no way around substantial fossil fuel and/or nuclear power generation.

 

I can't even fathom how it's even possible to be so naive and gullible that you would believe such obvious lies.

 

GND must be paid for with tax revenues? THAT is the lie. Educate yourself.

Hint: central banks can create money just as private banks do.

 

For my part, I want the free* energy which IS achievable. * free, because the BIS can fund the necessary transition costs, via its unlimited currency-issuing capacity, after which the sunshine and wind are indeed free.

Can We Rely Entirely on Wind and Solar Energy? | Greentumble

According to Mark Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford, and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the University of California, the combined energy supply from wind, solar and hydropower could be the key to supply enough power constantly. In this scenario, the hydropower would provide the energy backup in case solar and wind are too low [3].

And I don't even mind building the minimum amount of nuclear which might be necessary in some geographies, to clinch the deal...again funded by the BIS.

Energy provision is a natural public monopoly, after employing private contractors to build and and maintain the required globally-interconnected system.

 

Jacobson is an idiot.
Mark Jacobson Drops Lawsuit Against Critics of His 100 ...
www.greentechmedia.com › articles › read › mark-jaco...


Feb 26, 2018 — Mark Jacobson dropped his $10 million defamation suit against the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher ...



Mark Jacobson Files $10M Lawsuit Over a Critique of His 100 ...
www.greentechmedia.com › articles › read › mark-jaco...


Nov 2, 2017 — Stanford professor Mark Jacobson has long led the charge for a 100 ... by publishing statements in the critique that Jacobson said were false or ...



Judge Rules '100% Renewables' Researcher Must Pay ...
www.energyindepth.org › judge-rules-100-renewables-...


Apr 24, 2020 — ... in Mark Jacobson's $10 million lawsuit against the National Academy ... and climate activists – and eventually debunked by 21 researchers in ...



Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say ...
blogs.scientificamerican.com › plugged-in › landmark-...

Jun 23, 2017 — Thus, they conclude, Jacobson's findings on the cost-effectiveness and ... Looking past the methodological minutia of Jacobson's work and the PNAS rebuttal, I think there ... Mark Z. Jacobson (@mzjacobson) April 14, 2017.

 

Unfortunately, they've swallowed the CO2-governs-climate nonscience hook, line, and sinker. I've been trying to think of an analogous historical example of global, self-destructive delusion on such a scale, and I am drawing a blank. The anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers will be lucky if they don't end up being responsible for millions of innocent people's deaths.

 

That's not free, as it sacrifices all the better alternative uses for those resources.

 

How about the racist categorizations of human beings that justified centuries of slavery and exploitation?

 

Slavery and exploitation didn't start out being based on race, but I take your point. The analogy may even extend to the delusion being more a way to rationalize pursuit of a less excusable agenda.

 

Ah.... the "opportunity costs" doctrine of economics.

Of course IF AGW-CO2 IS real, then opportunity costs are irrelevant, because the first task is to sustain and save the planet's ecology (including us).

But even if it is not real: what better uses can the vast resources of planet earth be put to?

Eg, wouldn't you like to see an economy based on production and consumption that actually improves the health and prosperity of individuals? There are trillions in resources which could be freed up right there, via the elimination of the vast, purely personal, monetary-profit-driven junk consumer, "invisible hand" economy. Junk advertisers aren't interested in teaching people healthy consumption habits, of course...

I envision an ASAP global transition to at least 50% electricity production via sun/wind backed by hydro storage using all the best sites, then further developing industrial processes based on a green hydrogen economy, thus allowing alternatives to batteries and pumped hydro...all still based on free sunshine and wind.

 

A cost is only a cost in the first place if other desired benefits are foregone.

But it's not real, and in fact it is the opposite of real: increased atmospheric CO2 is a net benefit to the world because of its fertilization effect; and even if it causes some minor increase in temperature, that is also a good thing because it accelerates the hydrological cycle. That is why periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

Improving people's well-being.

Yes, like one that increases atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

I'm all for reining in advertising and marketing, consistent with the right to free speech. But I doubt that it will be fruitful to second-guess consumers' choices, or assume that you know better than they do what is good for them.

You are free to envision all sorts of uneconomic nonsense, but you don't seem to understand that fossil fuels and uranium have also been provided for free by nature: it's just a question of the cost of extracting them, same as the cost of wind and solar energy is the cost of capturing them. The only differences are that wind and solar are not depleted by use, and no one is privileged to charge others just for permission to use them.

 

This is the point from your post to which I wish to reply (apart from your apparent denial that education can play a role in refining peoples' choices).

Indeed fossil fuels and uranium have been been provided for free; and since energy is a natural monopoly, even fossil-based energy should be provided "free", paid for by the BIS, after the technology required for their extraction is invented in the private or public sectors (eg, in university R&D), rather than channeling huge profits to private companies which keep ordinary consumers poor (and makes criminals out of some of them who drive way without paying...).

In other words: the private sector free market fossil fuel industry is disaster for consumer equity. Stories of pensioners staying in bed to keep warm are legion...and Australians pay more for their own gas than people in Japan, courtesy of huge private profits extracted from hard-to-extract Australian gas, via large overseas contracts which result in shortage of supply for the small Australian market. Market failure.

The "only difference" you mention (between renewables and fossils) is indeed a significant one; the latter are limited, and becoming increasingly more demanding/expensive to extract.

And your final point seems to confirm my points above about development within private sector free markets; a privately owned renewables-based energy plant (eg sun/wind backed by hydro storage), will be able to charge like a wounded bull for the electricity, to make a hefty profit, thus establishing permission (via electricity bills) to use the forever unlimited energy.

 

DOE Clean Hydrogen Plan: Breathing New Life into Brown Coal Plants
Eric Worrall
The farce of government agencies and climate warriors celebrating new CO2 belching coal plants which produce “clean hydrogen” is gathering momentum.

 

No. Only the energy (i.e., electric power and natural gas) distribution grids are natural monopolies. Energy production benefits from competition. It just doesn't benefit from private interests being privileged to charge everyone else full market value just for permission to use what nature provided for free.

No. Anything that is scarce should have appropriate costs of access attached to its consumption to ensure efficient allocation. The payment just shouldn't be made to private interests in return for nothing.

How? By issuing national currencies? Which ones, how much of each one, and how would the BIS decide that?

You should try to learn the difference between profits earned by efficient production and natural resource rents obtained in return for nothing.

It's not a free market because one of the things being traded is others' liberty to use the resources nature provided for free. All private ownership of natural resources is a subsidy to the owners that everyone else is forced to pay for, and free markets by definition cannot include forced subsidies.

It's not a free market failure because people's liberty to access the resource has been taken from them by force without just (or any) compensation. Just compensation would ensure people could afford to live.

Which puts a natural limit on their ultimate usability.

Not if everyone is free to compete with them by producing power for the grid. The sun shines everywhere.

 

In conjunction with WTO and UN agreements. The matter is global; and since there is likely only limited choices in order to maximize efficiency of resource allocation around the globe (to achieve 100% renewables) such agreements will be based on transparent, agreed allocation of resources....since they are "free" (funded by the BIS).

The rest of your post points out that markets are not free.

Sadly for you, ANY 'free' markets are subject to human competitive greed, whether of individuals or nations.

And who will provide the just compensation, and how?

By the way, the sun doesn't shine everywhere eg for half the year within the ant/artic circles; a 100% interconnected smart grid (including PVs on private dwellings) will be part of the necessary infrastructure in the green economy.

 

Devastating Drone Images Expose The Uselessness Of Wind Energy In Cold Weather
By Kenneth Richard on 25. March 2021

Share this...
A new study affirms 0.3 m (12 inches) of ice buildup along the tip of a wind turbine’s 50-meters-long blades during a typical ice storm dramatically reduces the blades’ capacity to rotate – even in very windy conditions. The averaged power production loss induced by this ice accretion reaches up to 80%.


Image Source: TechXplore.com
The evidence that wind energy cannot reliably meet even the most fundamental need to keep us warm during harsh winter weather continues to accumulate. Nearly 4.5 million Texas residents experienced these grid failure consequences last month.

When a wind turbine blade spins in cold, wet weather, the ice buildup can span the length of the 50-meters-long blade, severely disturbing the aerodynamic balance of the entire 150-meters-tall machine.

Drone images from a new study (Gao et al., 2021) reveal the tips of blades can accumulate 300 mm of ice during an ice storm. Consequently, the blades may slow dramatically or even shut down altogether. The averaged power loss in an icing-induced slowing of blade rotation is 80% when compared to non-iced turbine blades.

In other words, when the weather is cold, wind turbines cannot be relied upon to supply us with the energy we need. . . . .

 

Firstly, if Texas utilities had installed heaters in its wind turbines like utilities in other parts of the country where cold weather is more of a problem the technical problems they suffered during the ice storm would have been minimized/reduced if not entirely prevented. Secondly if Texas had bothered to connect to one of the other two national grids instead of deciding years ago to 'go it alone' again it would have reduced if not eliminated the technical issues they experienced. Lastly far the biggest problem with wind turbines are not freak ice storms. Events like the one just past are once in a decade or so events at worst. The real problem is periods of calm weather with little or no wind. They are much more common, which is why engineers who design the systems try to place wind turbines where the wind is most reliable and include supplementary backup or battery systems in the grid.

As for 'when the weather is cold, wind turbines cannot be relied upon to supply us with the energy we need.' That's a blatant falsehood. The Texas grid was brought down by a major ice storm not a spell of 'cold weather'. And the storm, being a storm didn't just effect the turbines it brought down power lines and took out transformers as well. The entire grid was hit in one way or another. I also note that many roads,even major ones became impassible during the weather event. We don't seen you arguing though that 'roads cannot be relied upon to provide us with the transport we need' do we?

So in summery wind power is not a panacea, but it can make a quiet and clean contribution to power grids. Solar cells are making a much bigger contribution as are domestic and industrial scale battery packs for load distribution. Finally emerging technologies in fission and fusion (especially fusion) may well play a part if the costs can be brought way down. One way or another carbon fuels for power generation are on their out and even for transport carbon neutral bio fuels will replace traditional aviation and marine fuels. Oil and coal are in terminal decline. Nothing will save them.

 

The research concludes otherwise.


Image Source: Gao et al., 2021