One more liberal myth blows up in their faces
You’re average Joe knew that 6 years ago. Guess Google engineers aren’t all that good.
This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows basic physics. To be usable, energy cannot be accumulated, it must be unleashed.
Looks like it is fusion or nothing.
Solar is viable only on a personal basis when used with passive solar sun etc. When you get into those huge solar plants without engineers or solar experts to take care of what is being collected, it goes belly up. The wind turbines seem okay in small areas, but aren’t substantial for a whole grid to run off of.
Now, this was tried forty years ago and didn’t work either. Is it those who try to run it, or is it that it was meant for the private person, who can implement for personal use and has time to correct any ongoing issues?
Look at billions wasted by taxpayers on those solar companies now closed....of course the democrats got their donations from our money first.
Solar and such are compromises that are suitable for individuals off grid and military operations for the field, remote sites etc. and all kinds of better than nothings, but not for nations and cities.
Well, you know the old saying........
“Horsepower is work, but torque is one of The MONKEES.”
Anything else is pixie dust.
They started with the wrong idea: to provide *most* energy with renewable resources. The truth is that *some* renewable energy is fine and dandy, but only for *marginal* uses.
Most of the time, marginal uses are less valuable, because primary energy provision is more than adequate, and does a great job at low cost.
However, when there are *peaks* of energy consumption, renewable resources are quite handy. Oddly enough, mostly by making primary energy provision more efficient.
As an M.E., I’ve been saying for decades that widespread wind and solar are pipedreams. Sure, they have their niche, when ready or reliable infrastructure is unavailable. But the physical plant (both space and materials) to extract a low density energy source makes it highly impractical on a large scale.
Solar energy. Our fair-weather friend.
Humans have largely abandoned wind energy except for recreational fun over the last few centuries.
A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
The production of the electric car results in sizeable emissions —the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in a typical gasoline powered vehicle.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472
Batteries have severely underperformed for the last 100 years or so.
PV is cool modern tech though.
That's what happens when drinking Kool-Aid is mistaken for thought.
Wah!!!
No!!!
At least they are honest in their assessment and were willing to publicly acknowldge RE is a not economically viable nor is its vaunted religion.
It simply cannot out produce the energy that goes into the technologies and mostly cannot break even with the power requirements in manufacturing and maintaining such tech.
So sad, too bad, buh bye....
Me Makee Sadee Face...
I dunno. My wife says I generate enough methane (farts) to power a city.
Funny, but animals get along fine using natural sources of renewable energy, as did Native Americans before the European invasion of North America.
The day will come when we will realize that modern technology is only the effort to make more of less, and the less being almost always of inferior quality.
And that there is a limit to how much can be made from a diminishing supply of resources.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. That is exactly what myself and legions of other engineers have been saying for years. Yes, I am a big fan of renewable energy sources (ie. the sun, since everything else on earth is finite). However, it really doesn't take too much skull sweat nor online research to figure out that renewable energy with existing technology is not a good idea for mass production/use. All those enviro-whackos promoting widespread adoption of "green" energy are actually, gasp (!), advocating a position that will result in a net increase in environmental harm. Ouch, that's gotta hurt if/when they eventually realize that.
Some day, maybe, probably, we'll have technology available that will make renewable/green energy sources not only economically viable (without artificial government incentives/distortions) and that is actually lower net environment impact than other energy sources. Not there yet. Therefore it is (currently) environmentally irresponsible to promote green energy.
“We now know that to be a false hope … Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
Different approach? How about OIL, NATURAL GAS, COAL......