Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
News hot off the presses, the madness spreads …
UN calls for doubling renewable energy by 2030
(AFP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — UN chief Ban Ki-moon made a call to double global consumption of renewable energy over the next two decades in order to ensure sustainable economic development.
“It’s possible if we show political leadership,” Ban said. … “We have to be very austere in using energy… We have to completely change our behavior, at home, at the office.”
Figure 1. US energy use, 2008. Click on image for larger view. SOURCE: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
Double our consumption of renewable energy by 2030 … what’s not to like?
Well, the first thing not to like is that renewable energy is intermittent. That means that if we add a million kilowatts of renewable energy generation, we also have to add a million kilowatts of conventional generators.
Second thing not to like is that renewable energy is expensive, typically around three times as expensive as fossil fuel. These first two things conspire to push the cost of power up, way up. Prices of electricity in California are double the prices in neighboring states because of this push for “renewables”.
More to the point, however, is the ludicrous size of what the Chief plans to do. Bear in mind that, as in California, the CO2 alarmists don’t see large-scale hydropower as “renewable” … don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but it’s supposed to be teh eeevil regarding CO2 … and as a result, few large hydro plants are under construction anywhere. So they’re not talking about doubling hydropower, that would be a crime in their world.
So the real reason not to like this plan is that we only get a trivial amount of energy from renewables. In the US, we get a tenth of one percent of our energy from solar, half a percent from wind, and a third of a percent from geothermal. Finally, we get 3.9% of our energy from biomass, mostly in industries that generate said biomass as a waste product. Total? A whacking great 4.8% of our energy comes from renewables.
If we double that over the next 18 years, we’ll increase the solar share to a resounding two tenths of a percent … and wind energy will go up to 1% …
Gosh, if we continue at that rate, with solar energy increasing by 0.09% every 18 years, solar will provide ten percent of the US energy by … let’s see, divide by 2, carry the 1 … well, by the year 4012.
10% solar energy by 4012 … that’s some goal there, Chief.
My main problem with the Moon Unit and his bizarro plans is that they are based on the idea that we need to decrease energy use by increasing the price of energy. They are doing that in Britain already, it’s called “fuel poverty”, and it causes old folks to shiver in the winter because they can’t afford to heat their houses. The fact that the Chief is advocating more expensive energy and thinks that reduced energy use is a path to “economic development” is just plain sick.
The opposite is true. We need to increase energy use, and to do that we need less expensive energy, particularly for the poor. Inexpensive energy is the best friend that the poor ever had. The UN’s Chief Moon-ki wants to increase energy prices. That increases prices for all products and services, because from food to clothing to medicine, everything contains energy. The Chief pretends to be a friend to the poor, but his actions do nothing but shackle the poor to a lifetime of energy poverty.
w.
PS—There are a some countries and societies (e.g. the Solomon Islands) that use 50% or more renewable energy, in the form of burning wood, sticks, twigs, and cattle dung for cooking and heating. This leads to indoor and outdoor pollution, lung disease, and eye problems, particularly affecting women. Having been in a number of those countries, I can assure you that the poor people living there would like nothing more than to get OFF of renewable energy … and Mr. Ki-moon is being willfully and criminally blind if he does not know that.
Mr. (bark at the) Moon is merely pimping for all his buddies who are invested heavily into production and sales of these magical power sources to the prols, usually via massive tax rip-offs and not so hidden subsidy costs folded into ones utility bill. I wonder what his cut will be.
Robbie says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:38 am
Mr. Eschenbach: Why don’t you just send a letter to the UN….
_________________________
It is not needed. Given the number of high profile trolls WUWT gets I am sure that WUWT is monitored quite closely. These people are very politically astute and they are not about to ignore WUWT.
Interstellar Bill says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:45 am
Plugging so many desynchronized sources onto the grid will make it more unstable and prone to crashes. Actually, a permanent grid crash and death of 90% of the population is the true Green Dream, and renewables are the sabotage that ensures it.
_________________
You’ve been paying attention.
Ban said. … “We have to be very austere in using energy… We have to completely change our behavior, at home, at the office.”
No we do not!
What a blithering bureaucrat/politician/megalomaniac with visions of ruling the world.
If every region is energy starved due to the UN’s imposition of energy austerity, how could they ever be overthrown?
The UN wants to start out in the driver’s seat by throwing the world into a permanent recession and then they claim to be able to solve the world’s problem—as long as we give them our lives and our futures in toto.
Energy consumption correlates perfectly with quality of life, standard of living, AND care of the environment as we have the time, wealth, and resources to clean up past messes and avoid future mistakes. The UN is totally in denial of this relationship.
tinman wrote:
“Check out the label of the box in the upper right of the graphic: “Rejected Energy”. That’s a strange euphemism for loss due due conversion and transmission. More than two-thirds of electricity generated is lost in transmission. Let’s put the effort in greater efficiency ther rather than misguided and uninformed expansion of solar and other “renewables”.
This.
The mid-term solution to transmission losses is to locate power plants closer to power consumers. But, of course, the NIMBYs can’t stand that idea.
The long term solution to transmission losses is room temperature super-conductors. Research in this area needs more funding – public, private, or both, it matters not. Just get it done.
While I like renewable energy sources, I don’t like the scale. I don’t want a huge wind farm in Wyoming. I want a small wind turbine on my roof that supplies most or all of my electricity. If my rooftop turbine produced more electricity than I’m using, the excess can be sent to the power grid. There is no need to pay me for it.
Unfortunately, there is an unlimited amount of money to be made selling electricity to people. After the initial installation phase, the bottom would drop out of the rooftop turbine market.
Willis say:
“—- –. More to the point, however, is the ludicrous size of what the Chief plans to do. Bear in mind that, as in California, the CO2 alarmists don’t see large-scale hydropower as “renewable” … don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but it’s supposed to be teh eeevil regarding CO2 … and as a result, few large hydro plants are under construction anywhere. So they’re not talking about doubling hydropower, that would be a crime in their world.”
===========
Once again you’re quite right Willis. – The only thing I can think of as an explanation is that “they” (alarmists & al.) are not at all interested in saving or reforming the power-industry. They are only interested in wrecking it.
Hydro power-plants, that are, or will be, just as effective and much more reliable than wind-turbines can – in most rivers – be built for mile after mile upstream of most waterfalls on both river-banks. – After all there are currents in all rivers.
Kit P says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 7:08 am
…Asking someone at a nuke plant how it is running. The answer is like a Swiss clock and better than 20 years ago. If you can find a 20 year old wind or solar system, has how is it doing? Still make a great picture but still not making much power.
_______________________________
Here is your picture (Not pretty) http://www.flickr.com/photos/somehoosier/4026264808/
Binky Moonbat.
evea192 says:
April 22, 2012 at 12:52 am
If you forgot the sarc/ tag I understand your post. If you did not forget, then you may want to seek counselling for your depressive state of mind. Read more history and you may realize this is the greatest age in which to be alive. I am a positivist and am aware of our current place in an historical context.
Well, the first thing not to like is that renewable energy is intermittent. That means that if we add a million kilowatts of renewable energy generation, we also have to add a million kilowatts of conventional generators.
In the parts of the world that now have no electricity at all, that is not a problem. In the parts of the world that use almost all of their electricity in the daytime, that is not a problem. In factories that operate only in the daytime, that is not a problem.
Doubling global production of energy from renewables is both feasible and desirable. It is not a panacea, but since nothing is a panacea, that is not a problem.
enginer007 says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:24 am
The ubiquitous Maurice Strong has been identified many times on this site. His ability to control from afar is well noted on WUWT?. Gail Combs has posted some amazing monetary connections to many of Strong’s ilk. It has not been discussed for a while, hence the perception that some may not be aware of his “manipulations”. We have had him clocked for some time now. His anti-human stance will hopefully be his undoing. I am waiting for him to say ” let them eat cake”. It will be all over at that point, as those who are ill informed will quickly become aware of his intentions. With this information, we can prevent this from coming to pass. Thank you for posting.
DirkH,
I saw that you brought up Giza Power and posted other links. One thing I am not sure about is the date. One indicated only few thousands years ago. I am not convinced. If you were to go to Robert Schoch’s website – http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html, Sphinx may be at least 10,000 years old. You can’t carbon date stones directly like those Ramses granite statues (which are unbelievable) so I have my doubt. These Egyptians may have “inherited” advanced but abandoned city a few thousands years ago. I wish we could travel back in time and found out for sure of what exactly happened. The stories behind Atlantis, Noah’s Flooding, Greek mythology, etc may have been true, who knows? How did they know about Golden Ratio and the ability to build that giza pyramid and granite objects with such precision that we did not see till 20th century?
Remarkable…
[Moderator’s Note: This conversation is drifting into areas we’d prefer not be discussed at WUWT. Please let it rest here. -REP
Excellent post, Mr. Eschenbach. Thank you.
For those who think energy prices “should necessarily skyrocket”, I would like to point out that my company (small as it is) would not be able to continue operations and would fold. The current POTUS is clearly out of touch with the average person.
[SNIP: I did ask nicely. -REP]
More to the point, however, is the ludicrous size of what the Chief plans to do. Bear in mind that, as in California, the CO2 alarmists don’t see large-scale hydropower as “renewable” … don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but it’s supposed to be teh eeevil regarding CO2 … and as a result, few large hydro plants are under construction anywhere. So they’re not talking about doubling hydropower, that would be a crime in their world.
Even in California, most people include hydro-electric power among the renewable sources. It’s only the most active environmentalists who do not. “Few” large hydro power plants under construction is pretty much the “steady state” in large hydro power plant construction. At the times of the construction of Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, Aswan Dam and the Three Gorges Dam “few” hydro power plants were under construction. Nevertheless, hydro power plants are under construction in Ethiopia, Laos, and Brazil. In those areas, electricity is now scarce, and the intermittency of hydro electricity will be a considerable improvement over what they have now.
The cost of renewbles is declining in consequence of persistent R & D in all aspects of production. Fast enough? How fast? On those, only time will tell. Persistent investment in cane ethanol in Brazil produced fuel that is cheaper than gasoline on an energy equivalent basis. Most commercial and combat aircraft have been tested now on bio jet fuel. How soon will bio jet fuel be priced cheaper than the petroleum-based standard? At present rates of development, probably less than 10 years.
10% solar energy by 4012 … that’s some goal there, Chief.
10% of a large number is a worthy goal. Consider if you could cure 10% of the children who have malaria.
The opposite is true. We need to increase energy use, and to do that we need less expensive energy, particularly for the poor.
I agree. Increased efficiency of use and reduced waste in use are parts of the overall mix. In the US, gasoline consumption has decreased about 50% compared to peak use. That has helped reduce the increases in prices that have hurt the poorer economies of the world. Politically, I oppose, as most Americans oppose, the restriction that governments, including the Obama administration, have placed on extraction of natural gas and petroleum. However, politically, I support the development of alternatives. About 10 years of continuous R & D were required to convert the primitive jet engines of WWII (GB, US, and Germany all had them) into the reliable engines that replaced the piston engines in the commercial airlines of the world. Twenty years were required by Brazil to develop renewable ethanol cheaper than gasoline. Decades of R&D have produced a solar technology that now produces the cheapest available electricity in some parts of the world.
To the person who suggested windmills on roofs: at that scale the windmill capacity factor is about 10% (and thats with a 100 foot tower). Oh, and if the wind doesn’t blow, you’re out of luck. Also, You might need a basement full of batteries. Try it and report back in a year.
Damn the physics!
Sorry moderator about that. I won’t do that again. It was just one of those “learn your history or you’re doomed to repeat it again and start all over again” thing. As you’re familiar with the saying “victors get to rewrite history”.
[REPLY: It’s an interesting topic, but there are more suitable venues, at this time, than WUWT. Sorry. -REP]
Oatley says:
April 22, 2012 at 9:42 am
I have been interested in compressed air for potential energy storage for some time now. We are a little way away from the engineering aspect, but not out of reach. It is good to point out the deficiencies of an energy source, but it is important to brainstorm viable alternate solutions.
So-called neodymium magnets actually contain less than 30% of neodymium (composition Nd2Fe14B). Not that it invalidates any arguments, but be careful with your numbers.
Philip Bradley: I lived in SE Asia for many years where vast tracts of tropical forest have been cut down to grow palm oil, much of which goes into biofuels. The reality is that somewhere like the USA introduces a biofuel mandate and as a result hundreds of sq kms of tropical forest is cut down.
Most tropical deforestation preceded the push for biofuels, and most of the palm oil plantations were planted on already deforested land.
Rik Gheysens said, April 22, 2012 at 2:19 am:
The Chinese Society of Rare Earths estimates at the completion of refining one ton of rare elements, approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic waste water and and about one ton of radioactive waste residue are produced. (Justin Paul, Gwenette Campbell, Investigating Rare Earth Element Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Environmental Impacts, August 15, 2011) The radioactive waste consists mainly of uranium and thorium.
So an unwanted, unused byproduct of making wind turbines is nuclear fuel that potentially yields orders of magnitude more energy than the turbines can ever generate.
Still, at least the turbines will be useful later for stringing up Climate Change ministers.
Mark S says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:38 am
While I like renewable energy sources, I don’t like the scale. I don’t want a huge wind farm in Wyoming. I want a small wind turbine on my roof that supplies most or all of my electricity. If my rooftop turbine produced more electricity than I’m using, the excess can be sent to the power grid. There is no need to pay me for it…..
_______________________________________
Your take on “Renewables” is classic. You swallowed the hype and ignore the physics. A wind turbine on the roof of most homes does not work because the wind speed is just too low and so is the mounting height. The amount of energy in the wind depends on the density of the air (height above sea level) the area swept by the wind-turbine rotor and the cube of the wind velocity. Wind mills can harvest a theoretical maximum of 59% of the energy. http://www.windpowerengineering.com/policy/the-physics-and-economics-of-wind-turbines/
As can be seen in this map, most US locations are not suitable. ~ USA 80-Meter(above ground) Wind Maps http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
More indepth info on wind speed by area: http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/atlas_index.html
Solar is just as bad. The maximum theoretical efficiency of a perfect solar cell is 33%.
http://solarcellcentral.com/limits_page.html
http://solarcellcentral.com/solar_page.html
Solar insolation map for USA (kWh/m2/day): http://www.altestore.com/howto/images/article/us_solar_insolation_january.png
Again most of the USA is not really suitable.
Aside from a lack of natural energy, the major problem with both of these is energy storage. And yes I looked into it and figured the best option on my farm would be pumping water between two ponds and using a hydroelectric generator ( http://smallhydro.com/small-micro-hydro-info/ )
If you have the land and really want to do something then I would suggest looking into home geothermal heating/cooling. It was the only reasonable “renewable” I found: http://mb-soft.com/solar/saving.html
Matthew R Marler says:
April 22, 2012 at 9:19 am
“Well, the first thing not to like is that renewable energy is intermittent. That means that if we add a million kilowatts of renewable energy generation, we also have to add a million kilowatts of conventional generators.”
In the parts of the world that now have no electricity at all, that is not a problem. In the parts of the world that use almost all of their electricity in the daytime, that is not a problem. In factories that operate only in the daytime, that is not a problem.
Doubling global production of energy from renewables is both feasible and desirable. It is not a panacea, but since nothing is a panacea, that is not a problem.
Reality would suggest that expensive, unreliable energy would most certainly be a problem, but since you, a Warmist troll say it is “not a problem”, well then, that obviously trumps the real world. I guess in your world, spending a lot of money needlessly is “not a problem”.
Thanks, Gail. I hadn’t looked at the physics of it. Just thought about the idea.