Fuel for thought

Politics and religion: two polarizing topics that deserve their own little place
DMC
Posts: 822
Joined: October 25th, 2017, 11:25 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 9 times

Fuel for thought

Post by DMC » September 8th, 2019, 3:49 pm

Ive always said electrical generators could never pay for themselves.

From the WSJ.

Jeff

Democrats dream of powering society entirely with wind and solar farms combined with massive batteries. Realizing this dream would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.

“Renewable energy” is a misnomer. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords will result in old-panel disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste. Consider some other sobering numbers:

A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. The alternative? Use gasoline and extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

Last year a Dutch government-sponsored study concluded that the Netherlands’ green ambitions alone would consume a major share of global minerals. “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production,” it concluded.

The demand for minerals likely won’t be met by mines in Europe or the U.S. Instead, much of the mining will take place in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining. The Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for minerals could take miners into “some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”

What’s more, mining and fabrication require the consumption of hydrocarbons. Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.

Engineers joke about discovering “unobtanium,” a magical energy-producing element that appears out of nowhere, requires no land, weighs nothing, and emits nothing. Absent the realization of that impossible dream, hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams.

Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a partner in Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”

Opensource
Posts: 691
Joined: September 16th, 2017, 7:14 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 38 times

Post by Opensource » September 8th, 2019, 6:18 pm

Technology is always evolving. The capitalist system is starting to show solar is profitable.

xtrawildcat
Posts: 3828
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 10:41 pm
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 111 times

Post by xtrawildcat » September 8th, 2019, 6:50 pm

Yeah, probably ought to start bringing those coal powered generation plants back on line. After all, those coal cars create a lot of economic activity for the rail industry. Might cost more and create a net loss of jobs in Kansas but lets all get on board with going backward.

Facts:
36% of electrical energy consumed in Kansas comes from wind energy.

Then in the spring of 2019, we have the unfortunate approval of the Grain Belt Express transmission line by Missouri regulators that will allow Kansas wind energy to be exported to Missouri and on to Indiana. Those who live in the Dodge City area will have to fight this infusion of economic activity to western Ks. Who knows, it might even cause a few young people in western Kansas to elect to stay there.
https://energynews.us/2019/04/03/midwes ... t-express/

DMC
Posts: 822
Joined: October 25th, 2017, 11:25 am
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 9 times

Post by DMC » September 8th, 2019, 7:10 pm

xtrawildcat wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 6:50 pm
Yeah, probably ought to start bringing those coal powered generation plants back on line. After all, those coal cars create a lot of economic activity for the rail industry. Might cost more and create a net loss of jobs in Kansas but lets all get on board with going backward.

Facts:
36% of electrical energy consumed in Kansas comes from wind energy.

Then in the spring of 2019, we have the unfortunate approval of the Grain Belt Express transmission line by Missouri regulators that will allow Kansas wind energy to be exported to Missouri and on to Indiana. Those who live in the Dodge City area will have to fight this infusion of economic activity to western Ks. Who knows, it might even cause a few young people in western Kansas to elect to stay there.
https://energynews.us/2019/04/03/midwes ... t-express/
Fact, the amount of energy used to create tower, and the amount of money needed for everything FAR exceeds what can ever be gotten from the wind tower. Its the amount of energy needed to create the tower, will NEVER exceed the amount of energy any tower can put out. In a zero sum game, for using energy wisely, we are already in negative territory, by using wind power.

xtrawildcat
Posts: 3828
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 10:41 pm
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 111 times

Post by xtrawildcat » September 9th, 2019, 7:28 am

DMC wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 7:10 pm
xtrawildcat wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 6:50 pm
Yeah, probably ought to start bringing those coal powered generation plants back on line. After all, those coal cars create a lot of economic activity for the rail industry. Might cost more and create a net loss of jobs in Kansas but lets all get on board with going backward.

Facts:
36% of electrical energy consumed in Kansas comes from wind energy.

Then in the spring of 2019, we have the unfortunate approval of the Grain Belt Express transmission line by Missouri regulators that will allow Kansas wind energy to be exported to Missouri and on to Indiana. Those who live in the Dodge City area will have to fight this infusion of economic activity to western Ks. Who knows, it might even cause a few young people in western Kansas to elect to stay there.
https://energynews.us/2019/04/03/midwes ... t-express/
Fact, the amount of energy used to create tower, and the amount of money needed for everything FAR exceeds what can ever be gotten from the wind tower. Its the amount of energy needed to create the tower, will NEVER exceed the amount of energy any tower can put out. In a zero sum game, for using energy wisely, we are already in negative territory, by using wind power.
Yet it is producing power for less money than coal and the same or a little less than natural gas. Doesn't make sense.

Also doesn't make sense that investment dollars are pouring into wind energy. All these stupid people. Bet they are the kind of people who killed the horse drawn carriage.

Ksuminnesotacat
Posts: 1129
Joined: September 1st, 2013, 9:56 am
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 50 times

Post by Ksuminnesotacat » September 9th, 2019, 7:50 am

Subsidies dummy

ChemicalKat
Posts: 3435
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 9:18 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 25 times

Post by ChemicalKat » September 9th, 2019, 8:19 am

Ksuminnesotacat wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:50 am
Subsidies dummy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... idies/amp/

Subsidies indeed dummy.

KITNooga
Posts: 4312
Joined: September 19th, 2017, 8:22 am
Has liked: 134 times
Been liked: 154 times

Post by KITNooga » September 9th, 2019, 8:59 am

ChemicalKat wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:19 am
Ksuminnesotacat wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:50 am
Subsidies dummy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... idies/amp/

Subsidies indeed dummy.
let this dummy just ask a simple, dumb, question: hospitals will happily run their systems (life support) off of wind power? or will they have emergency back up generators fueled by reliable, dependable, fossil fuels?

what's really the stupid part of this back and forth sniping: we need ALL of them, don't we?

ChemicalKat
Posts: 3435
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 9:18 am
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 25 times

Post by ChemicalKat » September 9th, 2019, 10:45 am

KITNooga wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:59 am
ChemicalKat wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:19 am


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... idies/amp/

Subsidies indeed dummy.
let this dummy just ask a simple, dumb, question: hospitals will happily run their systems (life support) off of wind power? or will they have emergency back up generators fueled by reliable, dependable, fossil fuels?

what's really the stupid part of this back and forth sniping: we need ALL of them, don't we?
Sure. But let’s all use the proper facts shall we? Green energy is cheaper without subsidies.

KITNooga
Posts: 4312
Joined: September 19th, 2017, 8:22 am
Has liked: 134 times
Been liked: 154 times

Post by KITNooga » September 9th, 2019, 10:58 am

ChemicalKat wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 10:45 am
KITNooga wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 8:59 am


let this dummy just ask a simple, dumb, question: hospitals will happily run their systems (life support) off of wind power? or will they have emergency back up generators fueled by reliable, dependable, fossil fuels?

what's really the stupid part of this back and forth sniping: we need ALL of them, don't we?
Sure. But let’s all use the proper facts shall we? Green energy is cheaper without subsidies.
perhaps. it it more or less reliable than existing? when you really have to have energy upon demand, is green energy really what we MUST have (as an ONLY source)?

I suspect if we talk about this in 'all of the above' terms, we all find common ground. there are places where green energy (if that is REALLY even an accurate term) is preferred. I live in TVA country. big flowing rivers.

of course, they were all subsidized/built during the great depression. wonder what it would cost to build this infrastructure now? and how many 'greenies' would put the kibosh on it due to snail darters, and NIMBY'ism?

face it: they/you all would find a way.


I am an 'all of the above' and 'where it makes sense' kind of guy.

Post Reply