It is easy to get caught up in discussions over what types of energy we should use, and how we should use it. The problem with such discussions is that they gloss over some of the fundamental concepts of physics that should be the real drivers of our decision making process.
A great read, for the technically minded.
In short, we better keep burning fossil fuels if we expect to survive a Canadian winter.
I agree with the commenter who writes that wind and solar farms should be called mines.
Pixie dust mines?
Great read. Thanks Doug Ford! Wind power projects are stupid and wasteful. And ugly!
“Wind power projects are stupid and wasteful. And ugly!”
Though ugly isn’t the problem.
Wind turbine technology is hardly new. If wind power were actually cost-effective and profitable, you can be sure we’d have had ugly wind farms blighting the landscape everywhere by the 1950s.
I might go a step further here.
If wind turbines had proved to be reliable (could create on-demand electricity for a household) and inexpensive (cheap as, for example, a 1950s Chevy), by the Fifties, every suburban house would have been equipped with one.
The farm we had, had at one time two wind generators, one by the barn and one by the house. They were taken down when electrical lines were installed in this area of Saskatchewan in the 1950s.
If wind-powered engines were better than coal powered steam engines, then steam engines would not have been developed and coal mines dug.
Read John C. Wright’s Count to Eschaton series (6 novels). One man’s war against entropy. It will take more than 21 billion years, but…
In the science of politics, Canada is experiencing an extreme form of entropy. We went from order under Harper to disorder and random chaos under PM Butts.
That clarified, it is a great article and makes sense even to a technical cluts like me.
Excellent Article by Geo..!!
I read another very good article by (T. A. “Ike” Kiefer, CAPT, USN (ret.), Who was investigating the use of Bio-Fuels for the US Navy. He also used the term EROEI. If you can find his report, it’s Excellent and critically Damns the push for any kind of Bio-Fuels (Ethanol), as simply being more costly in an overall sense….ie; Removing input products from the food chain and the use of Natural Gas and Ammonia in their production.
His stats showed:
Oil/Gas: EROEI 1:8
BioFuels EROEI 1:1.3
When it comes to vehicluar use, Ethanol reduces Mileage…at 10% methanol, mileage is reduced ~ 7%. What that means is that you must purchase 7% more fuel, pay 7% more taxes resulting in ZERO reduction in emissions whatsoever….IMO. Thats why COSTCO gas is so much cheaper…and you will find you will in fact get lower mileage.
Been there – done that – hand calculated.
Like Climate Change – Renewables on the whole, Just another scam to fill politicians pockets with our hard earned Dollars while creating Energy Poverty. A GM Butts specialty it seems…that and ensuring Canadians that have taken issue with him, are Silenced….As I have been.
On COSTCO gas.
Measure how far you get on a tank of COSTCO gas.
Measure how far you get on a tank of ESSO.
You will find difference, in the long run a significant difference.
Then you can calculate what is worth the money.
Sorry enviromentalist[sic], but it’s morally indefensible to burn food.
Exactly.
fyi: there is an inaccuracy in the link article.
“To generate that ray of light, inside the sun, 600 million tons of hydrogen per second is converted to energy.”
the sun does NOT convert 600,000,000 tons per second into energy.
it burns that much hydrogen converting it into helium. the loss in mass is some *four* million tons. not 600:
http://www.live-counter.com/sun/