3,295,492 stinking giant fans won’t save us. Energy Matters
15 Replies to “We don’t need no stinking giant fans”
“Both the wind and nuclear options are relative to a 10 GwC baseline and neither allow for future expansion of energy consumption.”
Flat-lining existing systems will destroy economic progression
Wind & Solar were never expected to solve anything!
When the phantom problem of AGW was created by those UN fairy creatures, they had the difficulty of finding phantom solutions to the unknown/non-existent science. It is all nonsense
“3 MWe turbine operating at 25% capacity for 24 hours and 365.25 days.”
No doubt someone would claim wind turbines always work at 100% capacity, as in fact most “analysts” do now, then quadruple the number.
Quadruple. That’s a lot right, so good enough, no need to do the math, like only a million wind turbines, for instance all of Belgium.
Hey man we got it covered. Don’t be mathing us, like the holocaust happened man.
Wind & solar work for teeny tiny human units completely attuned to what weather does in their locale. You might have to sit around a bit to brew a cuppa at times, but planting & harvesting will occupy most of your time during daylight hours. Animal husbandry will be necessary for expanded “horse power” jobs. Glass works (which consume lots of energy to melt silica) will be in demand for all the canning that will have to be re-learned. Transport from glass works to customer will be slow & possibly intermittent….due to weather. A lot of physical labour will be expended just to “live” year to year. Accidents will happen. Health Care will not exist as we know it, as it consumes lots & lots of power, of one sort or another. Either you go to them or they come to you (not likely), if you can afford to pay them in chickens or rutabagas & can pack enough to do so.
Wind & solar will necessitate a lot of dead people to happen to remotely work. New food source for the elites?
I didn’t read it too closely. Do either the wind turbine scenario or the nuke plant scenario account for the excess CO2 released in the manufacture of the cement (and steel) used to construct them?
Second, does the increase in atmospheric CO2 posited for the Business As Usual scenario take into account in any way the possibility that the response of the various carbon sinks on this planet may well not be linear wrt partial pressure CO2?
Wind and solar were never meant to be replacement solutions at the time energy crisis (peak oil) was fabricated in the late 60s (now carried forward as part of the AGW hysteria). They had hoped to bring cold fusion on line but that turned out to be a hoax.
Clean coal tech is the most viable solution to cheap abundant energy with ample resources far beyond oil and gas reserves. we should use coal first and save oil and gas as reserve energy in case the magic dilithium crystals never materialize in time. https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research
Clean coal tech is a very cost effective change over compared to the money wasted of high maintenance,low output wind and solar systems. Trump is acelerating the CC tech implementation but of course nations mired in socialist crony capitalist systems are hooked into the redundant technologies of their patronage clients in wind tech.
Building GIANT Windmills and proliferating eyesore GIANT wind farms … is like driving a Tesla. Both are massively EXPENSIVE, but are massively inefficient. A Tesla MIGHT travel 200 miles … IF you don’t turn on your headlights, radio, or air conditioner … and don’t roll the windows up and down … and for the love of God … don’t drive it in INSANE mode. Then, you have to recharge your batteries for several hours … unless you use the shortcut mode which will only deliver about half the EPA-certified (*snicker*) range.
But windmills, and electric cars make the Eco-leftist FEEL good about themselves. Like they are personally SAVING the planet from the evil SATAN of Co2. It doesn’t matter to them that the “weapons” they wield are as weak as a cardboard sword. They are literally tilting WITH windmills. All that matters is that they FEEL good about themselves. These are the children of hippies who believe that “happiness” is the highest achievement in life. That FEELING good is the highest plane of human existence. The only problem is that their FEELINGS are fleeting and ephemeral. Their FEELINGS are not REAL. Just as their windmills are inefficient contraptions that will eventually rust-in-place, and be swarmed with moths. Just as their Tesla will be a worthless trade-in, when the battery life is spent and the entire undercarriage of their car is DEAD.
@ Gordon, the scenarios do not take into account the emissions associated with construction of the new energy systems. But this is a highly relevant point, especially with respect to technology like solar PV, widely deployed in Scotland. Its likely that solar PV in Scotland will never produce the energy used to create the panels. And s we have a situation where we have dumped all of the emissions associated with a device into the atmosphere today and these will never be balanced by avoided emissions over the 20 year life.
The main, I believe only C sink variable over the last 50 years, is photosynthesis on both land and oceans. For so long as measurements have been made (which is not very long) about 50% of emissions have been sequestered in this way.
@ cuckslayer: not sure what you mean by clean coal? If its coal with CCS then my mind is in process of changing on that one having been highly opposed to the idea for a decade or more. CCS makes electricity at least 25% more expensive but at least you end up with a functioning generator. I think all CCS schemes in N America (like Weyburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyburn-Midale_Carbon_Dioxide_Project ) are linked to EOR which is sensible. In the UK, the government policy was to support CCS explicitly without EOR until they abandoned the idea for the time being at least. Right now I’d rather have coal with CCS than renewable junk everywhere.
If wind and solar power were supposed to be bridge technologies, they failed because their tolls were too high, so “alternative” energy was used instead.
BTW crushing economic activity and saddling business with ultra expensive energy and intrusive government will reduce emissions.
I understand emissions, and citizens, are dropping in Venezuela. Connection – what connection eh?
@ Kenji, I think it is the politicians who have developed total cognitive blindness in their quest for climate virtue. Elon Musk is on a quest for virtue and riches. But it is a fact that global government, academia and media has been taken over by Greenthnking. Science has been cast to the wind.
I look at dozens of posts such as Euan Mearns’ and no one ever seems to address the real problem.
STOP BREEDING!! For the amount of money it would take to build 3 wind turbines, we could pass out enough birth control pills to supply Africa, India and the rest of the Third World for a year. What will it take??
Hey, why not build a bunch of wind turbines, particularly in Oak Bay, Sidney, Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake , Brentwood Bay, and the Gulf Islands! These are all Green riding representation, they should fully be in favour if such things. In fact, Im sure Andrew Weaver would want one right in his front yard. Let’s get started right now! They should lead by example
Thanks, Euan, for the thoughtful reply. So factoring in the “carbon debt” (eye-roll) for the manufacture of wind/solar makes matters even worse? Shocka, that.
As for the carbon sink question, it’s basically this: does doubling CO2 available double the rate of carbon sequestration via photosynthesis, or does the rate increase geometrically? Or in some other fashion? I’m assuming here that there is a fair amount of negative feedback built in, as with most natural processes, or else life would never have gotten a toehold on Earth.
Kate, like WUWT, thank you for Euan. Energy Matters is a fascinating site.
@ Gordon, We only have data from 1959 (Mauna Loa) and the pattern of growth is very noisy owing to natural variability, especially the ENSO cycle. So its hard to answer your question, but the data are more consistent with linear growth in biosphere sinks. I would also judge that there is greater chance the biosphere sinks become “exhausted” than grow exponentially. But the biosphere removes about 50% of emissions each year, range is from near zero to near 100%.
See this post: http://euanmearns.com/future-atmospheric-co2-scenarios/
and this chart http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Em_At_Si.png
“Both the wind and nuclear options are relative to a 10 GwC baseline and neither allow for future expansion of energy consumption.”
Flat-lining existing systems will destroy economic progression
Wind & Solar were never expected to solve anything!
When the phantom problem of AGW was created by those UN fairy creatures, they had the difficulty of finding phantom solutions to the unknown/non-existent science. It is all nonsense
“3 MWe turbine operating at 25% capacity for 24 hours and 365.25 days.”
No doubt someone would claim wind turbines always work at 100% capacity, as in fact most “analysts” do now, then quadruple the number.
Quadruple. That’s a lot right, so good enough, no need to do the math, like only a million wind turbines, for instance all of Belgium.
Hey man we got it covered. Don’t be mathing us, like the holocaust happened man.
Wind & solar work for teeny tiny human units completely attuned to what weather does in their locale. You might have to sit around a bit to brew a cuppa at times, but planting & harvesting will occupy most of your time during daylight hours. Animal husbandry will be necessary for expanded “horse power” jobs. Glass works (which consume lots of energy to melt silica) will be in demand for all the canning that will have to be re-learned. Transport from glass works to customer will be slow & possibly intermittent….due to weather. A lot of physical labour will be expended just to “live” year to year. Accidents will happen. Health Care will not exist as we know it, as it consumes lots & lots of power, of one sort or another. Either you go to them or they come to you (not likely), if you can afford to pay them in chickens or rutabagas & can pack enough to do so.
Wind & solar will necessitate a lot of dead people to happen to remotely work. New food source for the elites?
I didn’t read it too closely. Do either the wind turbine scenario or the nuke plant scenario account for the excess CO2 released in the manufacture of the cement (and steel) used to construct them?
Second, does the increase in atmospheric CO2 posited for the Business As Usual scenario take into account in any way the possibility that the response of the various carbon sinks on this planet may well not be linear wrt partial pressure CO2?
Wind and solar were never meant to be replacement solutions at the time energy crisis (peak oil) was fabricated in the late 60s (now carried forward as part of the AGW hysteria). They had hoped to bring cold fusion on line but that turned out to be a hoax.
Clean coal tech is the most viable solution to cheap abundant energy with ample resources far beyond oil and gas reserves. we should use coal first and save oil and gas as reserve energy in case the magic dilithium crystals never materialize in time.
https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research
Clean coal tech is a very cost effective change over compared to the money wasted of high maintenance,low output wind and solar systems. Trump is acelerating the CC tech implementation but of course nations mired in socialist crony capitalist systems are hooked into the redundant technologies of their patronage clients in wind tech.
Building GIANT Windmills and proliferating eyesore GIANT wind farms … is like driving a Tesla. Both are massively EXPENSIVE, but are massively inefficient. A Tesla MIGHT travel 200 miles … IF you don’t turn on your headlights, radio, or air conditioner … and don’t roll the windows up and down … and for the love of God … don’t drive it in INSANE mode. Then, you have to recharge your batteries for several hours … unless you use the shortcut mode which will only deliver about half the EPA-certified (*snicker*) range.
But windmills, and electric cars make the Eco-leftist FEEL good about themselves. Like they are personally SAVING the planet from the evil SATAN of Co2. It doesn’t matter to them that the “weapons” they wield are as weak as a cardboard sword. They are literally tilting WITH windmills. All that matters is that they FEEL good about themselves. These are the children of hippies who believe that “happiness” is the highest achievement in life. That FEELING good is the highest plane of human existence. The only problem is that their FEELINGS are fleeting and ephemeral. Their FEELINGS are not REAL. Just as their windmills are inefficient contraptions that will eventually rust-in-place, and be swarmed with moths. Just as their Tesla will be a worthless trade-in, when the battery life is spent and the entire undercarriage of their car is DEAD.
@ Gordon, the scenarios do not take into account the emissions associated with construction of the new energy systems. But this is a highly relevant point, especially with respect to technology like solar PV, widely deployed in Scotland. Its likely that solar PV in Scotland will never produce the energy used to create the panels. And s we have a situation where we have dumped all of the emissions associated with a device into the atmosphere today and these will never be balanced by avoided emissions over the 20 year life.
The main, I believe only C sink variable over the last 50 years, is photosynthesis on both land and oceans. For so long as measurements have been made (which is not very long) about 50% of emissions have been sequestered in this way.
@ cuckslayer: not sure what you mean by clean coal? If its coal with CCS then my mind is in process of changing on that one having been highly opposed to the idea for a decade or more. CCS makes electricity at least 25% more expensive but at least you end up with a functioning generator. I think all CCS schemes in N America (like Weyburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyburn-Midale_Carbon_Dioxide_Project ) are linked to EOR which is sensible. In the UK, the government policy was to support CCS explicitly without EOR until they abandoned the idea for the time being at least. Right now I’d rather have coal with CCS than renewable junk everywhere.
If wind and solar power were supposed to be bridge technologies, they failed because their tolls were too high, so “alternative” energy was used instead.
BTW crushing economic activity and saddling business with ultra expensive energy and intrusive government will reduce emissions.
I understand emissions, and citizens, are dropping in Venezuela. Connection – what connection eh?
@ Kenji, I think it is the politicians who have developed total cognitive blindness in their quest for climate virtue. Elon Musk is on a quest for virtue and riches. But it is a fact that global government, academia and media has been taken over by Greenthnking. Science has been cast to the wind.
I look at dozens of posts such as Euan Mearns’ and no one ever seems to address the real problem.
STOP BREEDING!! For the amount of money it would take to build 3 wind turbines, we could pass out enough birth control pills to supply Africa, India and the rest of the Third World for a year. What will it take??
Hey, why not build a bunch of wind turbines, particularly in Oak Bay, Sidney, Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake , Brentwood Bay, and the Gulf Islands! These are all Green riding representation, they should fully be in favour if such things. In fact, Im sure Andrew Weaver would want one right in his front yard. Let’s get started right now! They should lead by example
Thanks, Euan, for the thoughtful reply. So factoring in the “carbon debt” (eye-roll) for the manufacture of wind/solar makes matters even worse? Shocka, that.
As for the carbon sink question, it’s basically this: does doubling CO2 available double the rate of carbon sequestration via photosynthesis, or does the rate increase geometrically? Or in some other fashion? I’m assuming here that there is a fair amount of negative feedback built in, as with most natural processes, or else life would never have gotten a toehold on Earth.
Kate, like WUWT, thank you for Euan. Energy Matters is a fascinating site.
@ Gordon, We only have data from 1959 (Mauna Loa) and the pattern of growth is very noisy owing to natural variability, especially the ENSO cycle. So its hard to answer your question, but the data are more consistent with linear growth in biosphere sinks. I would also judge that there is greater chance the biosphere sinks become “exhausted” than grow exponentially. But the biosphere removes about 50% of emissions each year, range is from near zero to near 100%.
See this post:
http://euanmearns.com/future-atmospheric-co2-scenarios/
and this chart
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Em_At_Si.png