Are Renewables the Answer?

Renewable energy is not really the solution. To make the gadgets needed for extraction of renewable energy are made using fossil fuels. So we are using fossil fues in advance to save those in future.

Only Solution is to use less and less.

Yea, I just told someone the other day that our problem is consuming too much energy. Not what type of fuel we use.

Dear Gsuhas: To support the masses, industry is needed, green or other. MORE and MORE is "needed", and, as oil/hydrocarbon manipulation are limitless (because in the case of oil, it's being produced Naturally all the time as a distillate of Methane{the concept of 'Peak-Oil' is a Globalist-fiction}. Because WWII could NOT have started, but for the 1926 Standard Oil of New Jersey patents on CONVERSION OF COAL(hydrocarbon manipulation) to petroleum distillates, thereby allowing oil-poor 30s-40s Germany to produce over 50,000gals of hi-test aviation fuel/month for the bombers of the Luftwaffe, increasing speed, range, and bomb-load), there is NO REASON to use less. By growing hi-lipid algaes from sea water, India could produce its own oil, although I'd bet the seas of India would also support oil platforms for more conventional supplies. Off-shore platforms are great for recovery of collapsed fisheries, so more oil means more fish! As India is a cheap-labor area, India could trade industrial production... for oil fuels from elsewhere if nothing else. --Gsuhas, have you been drinking "Globalist(Marxist)-Kool-aide?"

Too bad I have to start responses on a negative note. But it will be interesting to study the IPCC's basis for their report. I hope it doesn't include too many baseless mathematical extrapolations of past technology trends or optimistic expectations of the nobility of human nature. .........Ed Weldon

Renewables will be some of the solution, for the time being. Ultimately, they will need to be the full solution, because the non-renewables will simply run out.

Tornado -- There looks to be growing evidence to suggest that fossil fuel resources of coal and natural gas are enough to still be economical choices after the world climate has changed to the point where populations reduce in the face of a hostile living environment and to a lesser extent armed conflict in competition for remaining food production resources. Imagine a war in the latter part of this century where the primary targets for nuclear missile attacks are fossil fuel power plants driven as much by popular political anger toward the carbon emitters as by military strategy.

I know this is far fetched and unnecessarily pessimistic. But we need to come to grips with the possibility that advanced standards of living for a world population of 9-10 billion may not be possible with every renewable resource we can develop. Either populations or economies living standards will massively shrink. Or both.

And note here that we are probably looking at a 5-10 year postponement in previously estimated increase of nuclear power resources.

Ed Weldon

The main operative phrase in my comment was "for the time being", which might be for a fairly long time.

There is "out there" a conjecture that oil production is a continuous geologic process, rather than an ancient "one-shot" process. If so, petroleum could be a renewable resource. I doubt that, but can't rule it out. Whatever may be the case about this and other possibilities, all of the "one-time" (or really slow) ones will eventually run out. The long-term energy source is the sun, whose energy can be captured to varying degrees by hydroelectric, wind, tidal, and photovoltaic means (and maybe some others). But even that will run out in a few billion years.

I've never read or heard anyone say that, even in wacko online blogs. What could possibly motivate you to think that fossil fuel will be an economical (hard to interpret what that means) choice, even if the world population has tanked due to climate change. Think maybe you might be wading around in toxic muck, or eating moss?

"I've never read or heard anyone say that, even in wacko online blogs. What could possibly motivate you to think that fossil fuel will be an economical (hard to interpret what that means) choice, even if the world population has tanked due to climate change. Think maybe you might be wading around in toxic muck, or eating moss?"

PFR - I guess you don't know me very well. I'm a creative thinker given to a tendency toward looking for unintended consequences and being somewhat of a visionary. I don't think that people on CR-4 who read my postings think of me as a wacko.

Fossil fuel will be economical for a long time when there are only a billion or two people left on Earth to consume it. And a whole lot of it will be used to make cement. Yes, the critical ingredient of concrete. The stuff we'll need to build structures to protect us from the weather. We used to think underground living was in our future because the air above the ground would be too polluted to live in. That may or may not be the case depending on whether we can keep a few paranoid national leaders from throwing nuclear weapons at each other. But highly likely will be the need to fortify our dwellings, city structures and water storage against weather extremes. And that takes concrete. Lots of it.

Reduce the population of the planet by 50% through war and removal of viable crop land and there will be plenty of coal and even other fossil fuels to go around. At the same time the advanced energy technologies requiring sophisticated manufacturing and engineering will be withering in the face of extreme stress on our civilizations. Coal mining will always be low tech, especially if life is cheap in the face of mass starvation.

We've hardly had a chance to analyze the effects of global climate change on our continental climates. Most expert climatologists will tell you that raising the energy level of our atmosphere will mean more extremes in weather systems. While we have been wringing our hands over a future of rising sea levels, flooding the Maldives and having to build some expensive dikes, America's heartland, some of the best agricultural real estate on the planet, has gotten a first taste of real weather extremes. 10 years of that and much of the place will be uninhabitable. Huge swaths of it will not be able to be farmed. Just take a good look at Joplin, MO.

And that is just this year's big problem. ............Ed Weldon

(No moss, thanks, but I do like mushrooms, if only the kind sold at the local food market)

Further information on the IPCC Report here: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/1008833.article?cmpid=TE01&cmptype=newsletter&cmpdate=310511&email=true

and some interesting comments at the end. Is the one about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) realistic or is he a hobbit?

I read somewhere that if you covered the whole of Britain in wind turbines, you's still only produce 12% of the demand. Demand reduction has got to be the focus, alongside "well to wheels" and "drawing board (CAD station?) to scrapyard" energy costs.

I read somewhere that some CR4 posters make baseless claims, devoid of facts, like the one about covering GB with wind turbines. Reducing demand, and replacing supply with sustainable energy production is the key. It won't happen in a fell swoop.

Why do so many people think that there will be a silver bullet for the energy crisis. The global environment is in danger from the ongoing energy crisis, and requires solutions to two very complex problems.

1 How do you prevent energy extraction from harming the environment long term through climate change and currently through pollution and habitat destruction.

2 How do you finance energy alternatives when it is cheaper (more profitable) to avoid them, and legislation is either misguided or non-existent, or does not apply globally.

Let's get real, please. Let's put the dreams of overfed environmentalists where they belong.

The only practical solution to 1. is reduction in demand by reduction in population. I realize that this offends some. Technological answers will only help the richest nations. Pollution may be reduced in the short run; but climate change and habitat destruction will continue.

The only solution to 2. is elimination of national sovereignty. At the present time the trend in most of the world is in the opposite direction, i.e. greater numbers of smaller sovereign nations and tribal regions in failing states.

Ed Weldon

"I read somewhere that if you covered the whole of Britain in wind turbines, you'd still only produce 12% of the demand." .....English Rose

Somewhat different numbers in your David J.C. Mackay's book "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air". UIT Cambridge Ltd. 2009. (Entire text posted for free use on the Author's website.) On page 33 I think Mackay says that wind turbines on the windiest 10% of the UK land would fill the part of total UK energy usage comprised of electric grid power, about 20kwh/day/person. Still a staggering amount of real estate and machinery cost.

Ed Weldon

all of the land would produce 12% of the demand, or 10% of the land produce would all of the demand. The difference is not semantics, it's called fabrication.

No one has suggested it is not a lot of expensive machinery.

This is CR4, not the National Enquirer, Ed.

PFR - I'm not sure I understand your statement "all of the land would produce 12% of the demand, or 10% of the land produce would all of the demand". Perhaps a misprint confuses me.

But here's some facts: Again from Mackay, 2006 UK total energy use was 125kwh/person/day. 6+ times the 20 for generated power to their grid. Which with some simple arithmetic suggests that 60% of the UK land devoted to wind turbines would produce all required energy assuming direct fuel users could be converted. Other responsible sources could easily make some different assumptions about wind power productivity and come up with the number English Rose cited.

The topic of this thread is the question "Are Renewables the Answer?" We've argued over the semantics of "Renewables". Now shall we argue over the meaning of "Answer" in this context?

To me "Answer" suggests a practical, achievable and somewhat likely chain of accomplishments or at least a logical plan for such.

Perhaps, PFR, your National Enquirer, a publication with which I have little familiarity, can provide some trite fairy tales to add to this discussion. We always can enjoy a laugh. ............Ed Weldon

Just so I understand correctly, you believe the original statement was referring to all energy use, not just electricity? That is quite the leap, since I simply responded to the English Rose erroneus assertion that if you covered all of the land in GB with wind turbines, it would produce about 12 percent of it's demand.

You posted that turbines posted on the windiest 10 % (that's the prime wind real estate) would provide that portion of energy demand called electric (which you say is 1/6) of the total.

So the original post said one could cover the country with wind turbines and get 12%.

and you said you could use 10% of GB real estate and get 100% of the electricity.

I was simply pointing out that while both may be fabrications, one is certainly a fabrication. You would get a chuckle out of the National Enquirer, I can assure you. After all, they broke the story about Obama's extraterrestrial alien parents.

Who says that they have to be on land?

And what about reducing demand?

Oh, and what about reducing supply as a means of reducing demand?

Solar energy is one of the potential sources of renewable energy especially in Middle east countries. In these countries solar energy is available throughout the year. Continuous improvement in PV & CSP technologies will assist soar energy as an alternative to non-renewable energy.

One more basic question: Why these sources are called renewable. These are not renewable, they are perpatually available. We are not renewing solar or wind energy. Ok, may be water energy gets renewed (by nature)... after draining down to sea, it comes again at the top of the moutains by natural cycle. But solar and wind are not renewed.

Any comments/ opinions?

That seems like a semantics question. If "renewable" means that that a former storehouse of energy gets built back up, probably solar energy recovery would not be considered "renewable." But it might be long-term "sustainable" if no more energy is tapped than keeps coming in.

What gets harvested today, and is there for harvest again tomorrow, and every day thereafter, could reasonably be called renewable.

Yep. Everything is renewable. It's only a question of timescale. For biofuels, it's a few years. For fossil fuels, it's a few millions.

even universes might be renewable....

The big brains in astrophysics are having a lot of fun arguing that issue at the moment.......... EW

Coal, oil, and natural gas are renewable energy resources. Solar is not a renewable energy resource.

I wish the renewable term would just go away. It's meaning has been perverted beyond recognition.

Call them alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, anything but renewable.

As the real Mr. Lebowski said, "What are you babbling about?"

Incomprehensible replies are sometimes humorous. Usually not.

Yes.... Argue about semantics. We might make some progress there. All energy is renewable if the time horizon is far enough away. A spiritual perspective is helpful here and will tend to offset the unpleasantness that pragmatists like myself tend to sprinkle on our discussions.

Ed Weldon

Thank you. Very succinct explanation of my rant.

Cheers !

The USA consumes approximately half of the power used in the world. We could make a very heavy dent in the use of fossil fuels for electricity by mandating PV arrays on every house in the USA, plus batteries for night time use. With that volume, the price would get way lower, the efficiency would go way up, and the need for a grid super highway would probably disappear (replaced by city-wide grids). In addition, increased use of electricity-propelled cars would allow overnight feeding to the local grid, assuming smart grid adapters to allow this.

We would still need big power plants for factory power, remote locations, and places where the sun rarely shines. But it could mean far less reliance on fossil fuels.

Mandates. Has a nice ring to it.

Mandates are possible : e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and Pensions for our congress people.

I think in the USA mandated home solar arrays would only be practical for new construction and major renovation permits. In densely populated urban areas the power from solar arrays on available sun exposed structures may be a much lower percentage of electricity consumption in homes. Such considerations will mean many years will elapse before added solar capacity can have a major effect on energy use.

But there is now doubt that renewable energy sources will be a bigger part of the "Answer" (even 100%) if we can reduce our energy consumption to meet the achievable renewable energy targets at some useful point in the future. Not the AD2300 when we expect to run out of recoverable coal.

Now that utilities are increasingly using computing resources to measure power consumption and calculate billing on the basis of factors like baseline and tiered rate structures it becomes more practical to fine tune the electricity usage baselines. A sort of hidden mandate. In CA the baselines can be adjusted for type of use (residential/commercial etc.), local climate conditions and certain resident medical conditions among others. Further tuning of rates could include factors like the amount of exterior (wall, ceiling and floor) area per resident, recorded degree days at the point of use (outdoor meter sensors) to name a couple of big brotherish factors.

A major problem for electric energy consumption is rising seasonal temperature averages and their effect on the need for air conditioning. We could pay a whole lot more attention to both low tech and high tech methods for keeping people cool. I believe there are huge opportunities for entrepreneurial creativity in this sector.

Ed Weldon

You do not need mandates. You need the cost of energy to be properly represented, including the true costs of poor air quality, ecologic and climate damage. I would estimate the true cost in Virginia, where they burn coal and harvest nuclear reactions, is at least 60 cents a KW. We pay 10 cents. If the rate went up 20 % a year, in less than ten years, we would have a vibrant renewable energy infrastructure that would enable many coal plant closures. It would make people change. It would improve the air quality dramatically. It would create jobs. It would preserve our precious fossil fuels for the future.

Mandating residential solar is a terrible idea. Most (more than 50%) of roof surfaces in the residential sector are far from the optimal orientation and are shade free, both requisites for solar economic feasibility. You'll notice I said feasible. They are far too expensive to deploy in suboptimal conditions. They work beautifully in optimal conditions.

Grid tied technology is far and away the most cost effective solar technology ever developed. Onsite storage of electricity is akin to onsite storage of ice. It is very ineffective, takes a lot of space, is usually toxic, has a limited life span, suffers terribly from entropy (just for you Ed), and in the form of batteries, focuses on spending huge amounts of money to deal with a few days of power outage per year, while essentially burying those resources for the other 362 days. A NG or Propane generator is a far better choice, for most people. It allows those resources to be utilized. The more sources we have, the more robust the grid.

Getting people to pay for the true costs of fossil energy sounds enlightened; but it runs totally against the grain of the "American Way". Which contains a very large component of "get someone else to pay for my bennies". We even fought a civil war over the issue of making some of our citizens give up their property to cover the arguably mostly intangible costs of their lifestyle.

We actually have something like that going in California; but it is not quite heavy enough to be more than just moderately effective. CA total electrical usage has stayed relatively steady in recent years compared with many other states.

Our 4 tier electric rate system in the Bay Area now runs from $0.122/kwh, tier1, to $0.333/kwh, tier 4. Tier 4 just got lowered from $.404/kwh because too many people in areas away from the coast and SF Bay maritime climate were suffering and even dying in the unusual recent summer heat. (and complaining loudly to the PUC.)

This tier cost stuff was a factor in my decision to switch over to a propane generator primarily for power outages. My rates were up to 47 cents/kwh and predicted to soon go to 62 cents a couple of years ago when we started the project. I calculated a break even point with propane at $2.75 a gallon of 80 cents/kwh in the top tier (tier 5 at the time) any time the summer temperature at our house got in the 85 -110F range. We are facing the sun for about 5 hours at midday. Not enough to payback solar panels at current costs.

We got lucky and got the better rate structure. So we just need the generator for power outages which tend to make our home unlivable for my wife; she's a bit more fragile than me. Even at your suggested 60 cents/kwh I don't think I'd run the generator rather than buy the power. But as such things would become commonplace the costs for auxiliary generation hardware for people without sun and wind exposure would likely drop a lot due to economies of scale in manufacturing.

Interesting sidelight on the economics of it: The generator was a $10K investment including the 500 gallon tank and installation labor and materials. Our home has about a $600K value in today's market; so the generator investment added about 2 percent to it. Considering that power outages average about 4-5 days a year in our hilly tree covered area that investment seemed reasonable although it was still a financial pain to go through with.

Ed Weldon

Thank you for replying. I always cringe when those in favor of mandates or other tinkering with the market toss out the "true cost" card when they want to push their agenda.

There is no true cost, only my cost, no? Tinkering with the market so that we can push our agenda is tinkering if it increases my cost. If I have asthma, I am tinkering with your cost if I want utilities or cars to emit less pollution. If I support a tax subsidy for an oilfield exploration program, it is not tinkering, I suppose. Tinkering is what we do in politics. It is the sole reason for government. Just because you don't know something doesn't make it irrelevant. Most of us don't know what the true cost of anything is.

As Ed pointed out, from slavery to the EPA, it's been an uphill battle. Profit at the expense of others is what civility and government seeks to address. We construct frameworks. In our nation, those who take what they can (from the government in the form of tax or other subsidies) and those who seek to protect our health and natural resources by regulating are constantly in conflict. Think, man. What do you want to happen? There are no more lands of plenty to pillage.