In her article at Greentech Media Emma Foehringer Merchant tells the inconvenient truth:
The pieces of a renewable-forward future are falling into place. Wind, solar, and storage are accelerating. Plummeting costs and greater security in investment mean countries are increasingly looking to renewable technologies as a safe bet. And prices for offshore wind and battery storage are dropping faster than expected.
One hitch, though: That renewable future still won’t mean the globe reaches its climate goals.
which anyone with any mathematical or engineering insight could have told you for the last twenty years. Even if fully implemented the measures being proposed won’t accomplish the objectives that supporters say are necessary for the survival of the human species.
Don’t tell me the cost of the first step or the next step. Give me the bottom line. Tell me what will solve the problem.
Doing anything else really makes one think that these advocates have some other agenda in mind.
I continue to think, as I have thought for many years, that we should be building more nuclear power stations and devoting more attention to capture methods than is presently the case.
[…] Tell me what will solve the problem.
We need to remove Earth’s orbital eccentricity.
We could have all the Chinese jump at the same time, and then, we could use the thrust of rockets placed at the exact midpoint of the Earth’s axis. The calculations would need to be exactly correct, or Earth could become Mars or Venus.
We would probably need to do something about the tectonic plates, molten core, and magnetic field, but if the Enterprise can use antimatter to travel faster than light, fixing the Earth should be simple.
If we aren’t willing to do the partial steps to slow the problem, does it really matter what a complete solution would look like?
We’ve obviously decided to just keep going and hope for the best. Maybe the climate activists and 97% of scientists are wrong, or maybe human ingenuity will save us.
It’s like the fat man who keeps overeating, and going to the doctor to take care of the obesity related health problems. Maybe we can keep addressing the secondary problems and the symptoms, and keep ignoring the cause until we die from something else.
Why are solutions that don’t solve worth subsidizing?
I don’t happen to buy the AGW theory. I don’t buy theories that predict nothing accurately. And even if there is some credence, it’s been way overblown. But to the technical acumen point, even if there was some validity the emerging countries emissions along with simple growth will dwarf other efforts.
Instead of screaming the sky is falling and calling for impossible to achieve measures, it would be better to focus on adaptation and for nuclear power. I can’t speak authoritatively about capture, but it sounds sensible. It also sounds like the future. But show me a AGW warrior not vociferously arguing for nuclear and I’ll show you a fraud.
I tend toward Mr. Schuler’s and Guarneri’s viewpoint. The tech is already extant, and flexible enough that it shouldn’t be so dangerous if decentralized (in order to adjust to fluctuating local conditions i.e. earthquakes, floods, tornados, etc.)
In addition, high temperature waste incinerators could be utilized as heat sources for local turbines. I think that idea comes from northern Europe.
Point being, the tech is there. It’s a failure of will that conditions aren’t already better than they are.
Nuclear engineers aren’t in particularly short supply. Jimmy Carter was one, Andy’s wife is one, and my friend Glenda’s son is one. They come out of the Navy.
Ever hear of a carrier or a submarine?
Hell, they had a nuclear reactor at little Reed College where Steve Jobs and I went to school.
I never used it. I couldn’t afford the damned Texas Instruments calculator to do the equations. It cost $243. Tuition and board was only $3000 when I went to school there in 1974.
A better calculator costs $13 at Target now.
I wear my hair like Annie Lennox so I can’t geta hold to tear it out.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&p=bob+dylan+everybody+must+get+stoned#id=1&vid=2e3160f5d0ea6d84168dcd37f5325589&action=click
Nuclear’s problems are liability insurance, and of course, NIMBY.
The one hard fact that prevents renewables from being serious energy sources is the capacity factor. For wind it is generally about 10%, with especially productive sites approaching 35%. For solar it is generally no higher than 25 to 30% even in southern deserts, and it also is usually around 10%.
This means that every kw of solar or wind requires a kw of conventional backup. In a very few locations, this can be hydroelectric, but because the backup must be able to come up to speed almost instantly, it is always a gas-fueled gas turbine generator. The quick response requirement means that the turbine is always idling, even when not needed (10% of the time).
So, every renewable project is really a conventionally fueled project. We end up building two complete systems where only one is needed. And we use as backup, a relatively low efficiency conventional system.
Every proposal for solar/wind is an example of criminal fraud.
NIMBY isn’t a very good argument. Am purchasing a summer place in Door County WI. The Two Rivers plant is about a half hour down the road. It’s killed fewer people than coal mines, leaking EV batteries……..
There are no riskless solutions. But there are foolish ones.
Nuclear happens to be pretty expensive. That said, it is interesting to see the progression here. We have gone from “solar and wind will never be cheap enough to be practical” to “they can’t solve everything by themselves so they are worthless”. I don’t see renewables as a sole source of energy the near future, and probably not ever. Still don’t see why they can’t be a part of the answer, and it looks like there is a real possibility that even when you don’t account for externalities they may end up cheaper than fossil fuels.
Steve
Steve
I agree with that but would go one step farther. Local conditions being as important as they are in the viability of wind and solar a national standard and national subsidies make little sense. There are some places where solar might be workable as a major source, another where wind is workable as a major, source and another where nuclear is a good idea. I don’t think that putting a nuclear power station on top of a major geological fault line is that great an idea, for example.
Solar and wind cannot generate enough energy to produce the aluminum and plastic needed to manufacture more solar panels or wind turbines.
Nuclear cost has been driven up through regulatory costs. The country of France seems to make it up.
I don’t recall anyone here, until Tadtys remark, ever claiming solar and wind have no place. They are just ultra-niche and probably can’t stand on their own for more than 10% of our needs during our lifetimes. But if someone wants to build wind farms in CA or adorn their roof with solar panels in AZ they can knock themselves out.
Make it work
@Guarneri
I don’t recall anyone here, until Tadtys remark, ever claiming solar and wind have no place.
I never stated that they had no place. My point is that without another source of energy, solar panels and wind turbines will never be built. Actually, a lot of stuff will not be produced.
A public electric grid would allow these sources to be easily purchased. The price might be higher, but it would allow a user to exclusively use solar and wind with hydro- and geo- electric sources filling the lulls.
West Texas is a good location for wind. I haven’t overflown the farms there. I have overflown farms in areas in Oregon.
I think down in Crawford, TX, the Bushes are using some geothermal.
Here in Louisiana we are using coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric. A local, specialized mix would seem to be an optimal answer.
Study the Old River Structure sometime. That’s a feat of engineering from France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure
Nuclear isn’t doing so well for a variety of reasons. I don’t see much happening on the horizon with it.