Posted on 03/15/2022 5:32:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Here’s the single most important function of this blog: Saying the things that are patently obvious but that just can’t be said these days in polite society. Yes, it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes every day here at Manhattan Contrarian.
With war raging in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, there is a renewed concern in many quarters for “energy independence.” Until recently, the sophisticated countries of Europe had thought the whole idea to be passé. They built large numbers of wind turbines and solar arrays, while simultaneously banning fracking for natural gas and shuttering electricity plants that used coal and even those that used no-carbon nuclear. Suddenly, at the very worst possible time, they found themselves completely dependent on Russian gas for heat and reliable electricity. In the U.S. it’s not nearly so bad (yet), but the combination of the Ukraine invasion with the Biden administration’s resumption of Obama’s war on fossil fuels has also left the U.S. vulnerable to an oil and gas price spike on world markets, whose supply side has been artificially reduced by government hostility to production of fossil fuels.
So what’s the answer? If you are a member in good standing in American media/academia/environmentalist/Democratic Party society, the answer is obvious: Just build more wind turbines and solar arrays until you have enough. These facilities will count as “domestic” electricity generation, and therefore will quickly lead to “energy independence.” What could be easier?
So permit me to say the blindingly obvious: No amount of incremental wind and solar power can ever provide energy independence. Electricity gets consumed the instant it is generated. Electricity is consumed all the time, and therefore must be generated all the time. Indeed, some of the peak times for electricity consumption occur on winter evenings, when the sun has set, temperatures are very cold, the wind is often completely calm, and the need for energy for light, heat, cooking and more are high. During such times, a combined wind and solar generation system produces zero power. It doesn’t matter if you build a thousand wind turbines and solar panels, or a million, or a billion or a trillion. The output will still be zero.
And calm winter nights are just the most intense piece of the problem. A fully wind/solar generation system, with seemingly plenty of “capacity” to meet peak electricity demand, will also regularly and dramatically underproduce at random critical times throughout a year: for example, on heavily overcast and cold winter days; or on calm and hot summer evenings, when the sun has just set and air conditioning demand is high.
And thus it is time for a roundup of recent calls for massive building of wind and solar facilities in order to achieve energy independence.
From UK think tank Carbon Tracker, March 2: “It makes no sense to lock countries into fossil fuel dependent power grids over the medium term, . . . . Instead, Europe could rapidly reduce its reliance on Russian gas (and fossil fuels more broadly) by accelerating the implementation of . . . investments in renewable energy technologies as well as focusing on energy efficiency measures.”
From Sammy Roth at the LA Times, February 26: “[D]oubling down on oil and natural gas isn’t the answer [to dependence on Russia], some security experts say — and neither is energy independence. The war in Europe adds to the urgency of transitioning to clean energy sources such as solar and wind power that are harder for bad actors such as Russia to disrupt, those experts say.” (The article primarily relies on an “expert” named Erin Sikorsky of the Center for Climate and Security.)
From MarketWatch, February 26: “As grim as the reality of a conflict in Ukraine may be, economically, it may serve as a major catalyst for Europe’s decarbonization efforts, forcing governments to invest in earnest in greater zero-emissions renewable energy sources and the electrification of cars and homes. Doing so could secure energy independence from a Vladimir Putin-led Russia that’s proving to be a greater security threat by the day, say green-energy proponents and other global market-watchers.”
From Energy Monitor, March 7, reporting on statements from two think tanks called Ember and E3G: “Policies to further accelerate the roll-out of solar and wind power, and therefore reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian gas, will not have any impact in the immediate term. ‘But renewables growth can be much higher than planned from 2024–25 onwards, provided the policy framework is put in place right now,’ says Moore [of Ember]. . . . In a briefing whose release coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the think tank E3G also advocates a ‘fast expansion of renewable energy and interconnections for the power sector”, which aims at “reducing structural gas dependence for system balancing.’”
From Scientific American, March 9, reporting on a statement from Frans Timmerman, chief “climate” official of the European Union: “The [EU’s] plan lends support to a package of legislation that aims to cut Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions 55 percent by 2030, and it would also ease European concerns over its energy security, said E.U. climate chief Frans Timmermans. ‘Renewables give us the freedom to choose an energy source that is clean, cheap, reliable and ours,’ he told reporters yesterday.”
There is essentially an infinite supply of such completely ignorant statements out there on the internet if you choose to spend some time collecting them. The quoted statements and dozens or hundreds more of same just blithely assume, or assert without basis, that sufficient numbers of wind turbines and solar panels can liberate us from fossil fuels, without ever mentioning or discussing the issue of energy storage.
Continuing with what is completely obvious but unmentionable in polite society: Since combined wind and solar power facilities regularly produce no power at all when it is most needed, a wind and solar generation system will either be (1) dependent on fossil fuel backup, or (2) dependent on storage for backup, or (3) both. If it is taken as given that the whole idea is to move away from fossil fuel backup, then everything comes down to storage. A fossil-fuel-free system based on wind and solar generation is completely useless without sufficient storage to cover all times of insufficient simultaneous generation.
To propose energy independence based on wind and solar without fossil fuels, you must, repeat must, address storage. How much is needed? How much would that cost? What loss of energy will be incurred on the turnaround between charge and discharge? Is the cost feasible? How long must the energy be stored between generation and consumption? Do batteries or other storage devices exist that can store energy for such a period without most or all of it draining away? Has there ever been a demonstration of the feasibility of a fossil-fuel-free system based only on wind, solar and storage?
Try to find any mention of these issues in any of the pieces linked above, or in any of the many others you might find advocating more wind and solar facilities as the solution to dependence of Russian gas supplies. As to the feasibility and cost of a wind/solar generation system without fossil fuel backup, consider prior Manhattan Contrarian posts from February 1 here, and January 22 here.
And PS: those windmills need power to produce power.
We need to at least credit Pootie-poot with again making this clear.
Stick your solar power where the sun don’t shine!
Liberals push Alaskans to opt for solar power since the sun shines 24 hours a day in the summer. (when the need for energy is at rock bottom)
In the winter they can burn snow. /s
freezing/overheating to death will be a big part of it. much of our life expectancy of 70+ years is because we have energy.
Energy to run life saving medical equipment, ambulances etc.....
we can easily go back 200 years in advancement very quickly without energy. And the next generation will look for new energy sources in, oddly enough, the original energy sources that got us here today in the first place—fossil fuels!
it is unilateral disarmament redux
remember those crazies?
I have a solution. Take an area in the world (Sinai) which has abundant sunlight, near a water source and build a Palestinian State. The entire country will b run off of alternative energy solutions. This means nothing containing petroleum will be used. Build several water desalination facilities and pipelines to carry water inland. Plant new gardens, trees and other greenage which will be used for farming, setting up a new economy. All infrastructure will run on solar power, vehicles of electric power only.
This will be the model for the world to see. Every country will bring its expertise and innovation to the table to build this new country. In a show of solidarity, the UN will move its offices to this new city. Palestinians will flock to this new country and be welcomed as the pioneers for the future.
Then nuke the place from orbit, just to be sure.
Good but wordy article which almost reaches the concise point:
When the buffer batteries drain, “green” power stops.
Batteries are expensive.
The more batteries you buffer with, the more storage costs, the less likely you’ll need the additional storage, and you’ll still encounter blackout scenarios - usually under worst-case conditions.
Yes, other power sourcing can stop, causing blackouts. Those conditions don’t happen literally every day, like with solar.
1 square meter of solar panel will produce, on long-term average, 10 watts.
(Yes, 10 watts. There isn’t as much usable sunlight as people think.)
10W buffered requires 240Wh of storage for one day (50W in for 5 hours, 10W out for 24 hours).
1000Wh needed for 4 days, storing excess input literally for a rainy day - and 4 rainy/cloudy/blizzard days in a row is common.
Yes there’s light on cloudy days, but not enough to not plan on. I’ve tried.
1m^2 panel + 1kWh storage = $1000
A thousand dollars to have 10W run for 4 days and 4 hours.
One hour (minute?) longer, and you’re at 0 watts.
If the storm is continuing, that’s a bad time to hit 0W.
Another 1kWh battery costs another $1000. Odds of needing it drop, but not enough to not have it.
Ask Texas & Chicago about month-long freak weather. Buy a month’s worth of battery storage: near $10,000 to buffer 10W for a month. That’s barely enough for one LED light bulb.
Odds of need for long darkness drops, but cost to cover that period is constant per-day.
I really like solar. I’ve been accused of being a Lefty over it. It’s great for AUGMENTING home energy production, and a fantastic opportunity to go off-grid (even powering vehicles now) as methinks every conservative should (to the dismay of Progressives), but we MUST have a steady stream of high-power instant-on sourcing to balance it.
Nuclear is the only viable “green” choice. Given enough demand, by building enough safe (!) reactors, we’ll be able to support extracting uranium etc from seawater. Build homes with solar roofs, and connect them to a nuke-powered grid. Anyone got a better idea?
incredible breakthroughs in the relatively near future
___________________
Wing is about the oldest energy source on the Earth.
Solar is also not exactly new.
Edmond Becquerel, in 1839, built the world’s first photovoltaic cell in his father’s laboratory.
All my, rather long life, I have heard - we can solve all the world energy problems, just give us more funding, we are almost there!
Makes me pretty skeptical!
American railroads for long distance hauls are electric also. Powered by electricity generated by diesel-fueled generators.
Solar is OK for supplemental energy, depending upon where you live. It would work out fairly well most years where I live, Dallas, TX, since it would have peak output during the summer months, and we have pretty good sun here most summers.
The biggest problem is how long it takes to actually pay for itself. If I’d done some panels when I first moved into my current home, I’d have passed the break-even point by now, if I’d not taken hail damage, but I didn’t initially think I’d be living here that long.
Wind power, especially here is stupid because of its extreme variability. A lot of the time, when the heat is at its worst, there is =no= wind to speak of.
There may be places where either or both can generate significant supplemental power, but most parts of the U.S. simply don’t get enough sun or wind for it to make a lot of sense given the time it takes for them to actually pay for themselves.
Maybe it could if 2/3rds of the population were wiped out.
The best source of energy is nuclear, but the liberals hate that...
US agriculture depends on diesel power for all types of farm machinery. There are not even prototypes of electric tractors or combines nor would they be remotely practical without charging stations in virtually every field. How do the greenies expect to get their tofu without mechanized agriculture producing the soy beans?
AOC will tell you tofu doesn’t come from a farm; it comes from Whole Foods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.