An article by Vaclav Smil at the IEEE Spectrum highlighted for me the contradiction inherent in the pursuit of wind power. Here’s his peroration:
Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies. Moreover, for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.
For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels.
Not every location is good for using wind to produce electrical power but it takes a lot of fossil fuels to build every windmill made, regardless of whether its eventual placement will be good or not. And then there’s the issue of the backup generation you need when the wind doesn’t blow.
Phoenix, Arizona is a great place for solar energy but lousy for wind energy. A solar installation for the average home in Portland, Oregon might break even over the period of 20 years. Its 200+ overcast days per year makes it a poorer candidate than Phoenix.
There are also places in the U. S. where neither solar nor wind make economic sense. Nuclear or fossil fuels are those places’ best choice.
Well, between you you sure killed that straw man!
Did someone claim we could entirely abandon the use of fossil fuels if we built windmills? I mean, a grown-up?
What Michael said. Why can’t we have wind power AND fossil fuels and Nuclear? Wind is already the cheapest form of energy in some areas (same for solar) and it is a relatively new technology (when converted to electricity).
Steve
Yes, Michael, it’s widely claimed. Just about every few days you’ll see an article saying how we’re on track to completely abandon fossil fuels. I’ll link to one the next time I see one.
I think that’s what I said in the post.
How to Power the World Without Fossil Fuels, Scientific American
Fossil Fuel Switch, Science Net Links
Reducing fossil fuel emissions isn’t enough: We must aim for their complete elimination by the second half of the century, OECD Insights
Now Is the Time to Eliminate Fossil Fuel Energy, Common Dreams
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study
Getting Off Fossil Fuels, Phys.org
Dave Schuler: it’s widely claimed. Just about every few days you’ll see an article saying how we’re on track to completely abandon fossil fuel
Your first link says it’s a “wild” plan and generally not “taken seriously”. That’s the opposite of ‘widely claimed’.
In any case, synthetic fuels are close to feasibility. The vagaries of wind and solar will matter far less as production will occur when energy is available, then stored and delivered chemically.
Those links refute the assertion that no one is making the claim. You are implicitly making the claim yourself:
There are lots of things that have been close to feasibility for nearly my entire life, desktop fusion for example.
To clarify my view, I have no opposition to wind or solar power, when they make economic sense on their own merits. I think that it is likely that a diversity of power sources is what makes the most sense, probably including fossil fuel use.
We will always need a baseload power source. Wind and Solar can’t do that without some kind of storage technology and the available technologies are not ready for prime-time when it comes to large scale and are extremely expensive at mid-small scales.
I don’t think any of those links work to your favor, though I certainly found “Guest Author” fascinating, as well as “Green Builder,” who (!) is trying to sell green building. So no, no adult thinks fossil fuels are going away. Russia and Saudi Arabia have fine futures selling fossil fuels. And there are people building steam engines, too. And the Amish love them some horses.
Why don’t we evaluate oil in light of the a) environmental damage that is never figured into the costs, and b) the military cost and loss of life necessary to maintaining it, and c) the money funneled to the worst regimes in the world? So far we’ve fought exactly zero wars over wind or solar. Neither gives people cancer. And neither puts money in the pockets of Vladimir Putin or the Saudi royals. It was not wind money that paid for 911. The sixth fleet is not deployed to defend wind power. If we did an honest accounting would you have such a benign attitude toward oil?
Speaking of straw men, I don’t recall anyone saying alternative fuels couldn’t or shouldn’t play a role. Its just that they have limited applicability and generally require subsidy to be commercially viable. I haven’t read the Department of Energy’s annual encyclopedic review in 4-5 years now, but alternatives were still providing only some 5-9%, and water was the largest of those.
To the point made within, epoxy resin is used to make the turbine blades (I know this because their production diverted epoxy resin from our portfolio company’s use, enough to soak up and move the worlds supply to an on allocation state) and making epoxy resin is like running an oil refinery. Think about that.
Andy is correct, wind and solar are still ultra-niche sources. Elimination, or large scale reduction, in fossil fuels won’t occur in any commenter here’s lifetime. I’d be focusing LNG for transportation, or how to make hydrogen safe and the infrastructure to distribute it – hydrogen gas stations. And small scale fusion for electricity. If, that is, my goal was reduction in greenhouse gas, which it isn’t.
But its a fools errand really, anyone see the recent article on natural emissions of methane from the ocean floor. Drat.
Michael,
The vast majority of oil consumed by the US is used for: Motor fuels (gas and diesel), heating oil and jet fuel. Wind and solar won’t impact oil usage for decades or longer because:
– Electric cars and trucks are currently a tiny portion of the market and, as Dave notes anytime the topic comes up, the turnover will take a long time once electric vehicles get wide acceptance (ie. they become price and feature competitive).
– Houses using heating oil will be around for a long time. Even if you ban their use today in renovations and new construction, the existing homes will be be using it for decades. And this would probably be replaced by natural gas anyway.
– Jet fuel – well that should be obvious.
So oil doesn’t really have much to do with the electrical grid (less than 1% of petroleum is used to generate electricity in the US). 1/3 of our electricity comes from coal, another 1/3 from natural gas, about 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro, ~5% from solar. So the fossil fuels that solar needs to compete against are coal and natural gas, neither of which have anything to do with 9/11 or 6th fleet deployments. Since both are relatively cheap and abundant domestically, wind and solar will have a hard time displacing them much less petroleum use.
“Its just that they have limited applicability and generally require subsidy to be commercially viable.”
They are still relatively new technologies. In some places they are now the cheapest alternative without subsidies. I don’t know where they end up as a percentage of our energy supply, but the trend is pretty good. Barring any sudden advances in fossil fuel energy generation or nuclear, it likely continues to displace conventional energy sources.
Steve
Hydro-electric power, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar constitute about a sixth of total U. S. power generation. Solar alone is about 1%, wind is about 8%.
Andy:
The title of Dave’s piece was not, “We Will Still Need Oil,” which is undeniably true – we still burn coal, wood and peat, too – but “The Inherent Contradiction of Wind Power.”
What about the inherent contradictions of oil and natural gas? Oil is great – but we need a globe-spanning military to ensure it flows. Oil is great, but oops, kinda gives people emphysema. Oil is great. . . except sometimes it poisons the water.
Because we start with oil and gas we ignore the attendant costs, and focus instead on what we imagine will be the downsides of alternate energies. This is not a balanced approach. We’re comparing idealized apples to demonized oranges.
Imagine the same debate taking place at the start of the 20th century as the car was challenging the horse. Think of all those out of work grooms, all those suddenly unnecessary paddocks, all the fumes, the accidents, the noise, the crushing burden of building paved roads and gas stations and refineries. . . Very compelling. And in the end, irrelevant. It’s child’s play to tear down the prospects of any emerging technology. And yet, new technologies keep appearing.
I agree with that. I don’t think we should subsidize oil or natural gas production, either.
But not every post is about everything.
Dave Schuler: Those links refute the assertion that no one is making the claim.
They contradict your claim that “it’s widely claimed”.
Dave Schuler: There are lots of things that have been close to feasibility for nearly my entire life, desktop fusion for example.
No one has created desktop fusion with net positive energy. However, they have created synthetic fuels with reasonable cost and energy efficiency.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/technology/audi-diesel-air-water/
However, they have not scaled synthetic fuel production to commercial scales, which typically presents problems of its own. So we return to the claim that most analysts still assume that complete independence from fossil fuels is years or decades away.