Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.
According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;
“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
As a review by The Register of the IEEE article states.
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.
[Post updated at Eric’s request to correct the source of the second quote – Anthony]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reducing food waste >> renewable energy
Pragmatic Reality & Priority:
Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested David Murphy & Charles Hall
Waste Not Want Not
It appears those Google engineers forgot to memorize and abide by …… The 1st Law of Engineering Design.
“If it don’t work on paper, ….. you just forget about it ever working when put to practice”.
Samuel
An engineering researcher turns that around to ask: What will be needed to make it work?
Then proceed to solve the problems.
Rather oddly the article itself sits alongside numerous trailers for other renewable stories all extolling the recent or imminent successes of wind, solar, wave etc. I particularly liked the idea of wind turbines flying high over Alaska – but hope that Cameron has not seen it. He is always looking for new ways to waste taxpayers’ money and has only 6 months left to do so.
The take-away here apparently for most commenters on the Goggle article is that renewables can’t solve the “problem” of AGW, so let’s just do nothing. Besides, there is no AGW. Maybe you all should actually click the link and read the article. What I got from it was that in addition to what we are doing with renewables today, “we need how to foster innovation in the energy sector and allow for those breakthrough inventions”. That is a very differently message than renewables are a failure. Presently, about $1.2 trillion is spent every year simply looking for new sources of fossil fuels whereas, only $200 billion is invested in renewable technology. AGW is real and we need to do something about it.
And your proof is…. the lack of hurricanes or powerful tornados? The lack of ‘severe and pernicious’ warming over the past 18 years? The record ice in Antarctica? The massive comeback of ice in the Arctic?
I’m cooking dinner, anyone else want to step in and keep listing?
No, the takeaway is if AGW is real then we shouldn’t be looking at reducing emissions to fix it.
Read the research. No conceivable form of power generation will be cheaper than using the existing (capital already spent) power plants. Coal and Gas are cheap – and very cheap if you’ve already bought the power plant.
They took the disaster predictions at face value. They saw that the guaranteed emissions are going to breach the “DOOM POINT!!!”
Luckily for me I’m more scientific and sceptical so I don’t panic like that but if you do take the disaster predictions at face value…
Then do not support wind and solar. Instead go for new energy; thorium nuclear, hot fusion (still), tidal barrages, solar updraft towers… something new.
Or, just in case climate can change without man’s input, invest in adaptation.
The take-away is that relying on the unreliable is a fools dream , in the end there is no way that the intermittent nature of renewable can be got around , worse its availability often drops when energy is most needed , i.e winter . Hence why there is a need to build back up power sources , so you spend the money twice and ironically cause more environmental damage so you can pursue an idea you know cannot work.
But at least you get a ‘nice warm feeling’ about how green you are , shame that will not help keep you warm in winter.
I get a nice warm feeling in the winter and save money with the photovoltaics on my roof. The transition system of having the power companies grid to store what I generate during the day to back me up at night works quite well in the interim. I think we must continue to innovate and transition away from fossil fuels any way we can. It’s not a problem for you if you just deny the physics of the greenhouse effect. For those of us who think we have a problem, we can’t just sit around and do nothing. The kids deserve better. Besides, contrary to what you all say, innovating new energy sources is good for the economy.
Ants prepare for winter. Consider the Ant: Proverbs 6:6-11
“AGW is real and we need to do something about it.” Yeah sure, just keep repeating that ad nauseum. Eventually someone might believe it.
$1.2 Trillion usec in fossil fuel exploration, the figure sonds phony, but let’s assume that it is true. The money would be spent by people that stand to progit from the discovery of oil so it’s built into the cost of the product.
$200 billion used to prop up “renewables” paid for by taxpayers.
Many successful industries we take for granted today began as startups using help from the government. Off the top of my head, I think fracking technology is one. What would the oil industry be without the highway system paid for with taxpayer money. Even viagra came out of a government lab and there are countless other examples. If we had a moon shot effort at renewable energy we could get off fossil fuels. If it happens, it won’t be with help from you as you don’t even see the issue.
Solar and wind may not work in a traditional big way, but it works well in a small way out in the middle of nowhere. In remote areas of India, Pakistan, and Africa, a solar panel, a wind generator, a battery, and a radio can bring big improvements to life. As in rural USA the wind generators and wind powered well pumps, improved the life of the Farmers out in the prairie.
Whether or not it “works” depends on what it was supposed to do. The first step in a solution is making certain you have the correct problem.
I see no mention here of the “alternatives to the alternatives”, beyond LENR (beyond the joker Rossi; the original Cold Fusion team were maliciously set up to fail yet their work has been quietly repeated and developed year after year) and beyond thorium. I went to a whole conference in 2013 run beautifully by the “breakthrough energy movement” BEM – a fairly new term for things which work but which bypass the accepted laws of physics therefore tend to get rubbished a priori by academia, and/or hijacked by the secrecy departments. This whole area of development often carries real death threats to those who push the boundaries too far too fast – as people like Eugene Mallove learned, as it were, too late.
I had to seriously take on board the spiritual and ethical dimensions. The keys are maybe “love thy enemies” – that we have to work together on this planet if we want a future – and “the truth will set you free” – but the truth is not in the MSM nor even here nor even in all the sites purporting to “disclosure”, but can be found with persistent digging and checking. That’s all I want to say.
If you don’t know or remember me, check my website for climate science awareness. Though I haven’t touched it for a couple of years, and I closed the forum and email link, I think it is still pretty correct and relevant. Discovery of the BEM world was one reason I finally moved on from what used to be my daily visit here. I think the challenge there is even more serious than here.
Yet I would not have appreciated BEM without my tremendous apprenticeship here, before and right through Climategate. And if there were 48 hours in the day I would still be working for the wiki (#1 info points to match SkSci’s gotchas, and Connolley’s wretched legacy at Wikipedia) that skeptical Climate Science needs, to help turn the tide of Bad Science that Pat Frank et al so rightly point to.
Lucy Skywalker, welcome back – long time no see.
I was a lurker when you were a regular so you won’t know me (but you may know my father RichardSCourtney).
It was your example of being so (in my opinion) wrong and unjustified in part and yet so right and logical in other parts and above all compassionate that taught me not to be simplistic in listening to people – in judgment.
You are way, way far from me but a good person and in no way stupid.
Thanks for coming back and letting me say that.
thanks a lot!
> as people like Eugene Mallove learned, as it were, too late.
Mallove was murdered while cleaning out his parent’s house. Eventually the obvious suspects, people recently evicted, were brought to trial and found guilty. http://pesn.com/2010/04/02/9501633_Two_Arrested_Six_Years_After_Mallove_Murder/
ah, were it that simple, that would be nice.
I’ve looked through 14 pages of Google and you may be right in Eugene’s case, Ric. That does not, however, explain away stories I heard at the conference first-hand. I know this must seem pretty doubtful evidence to you and I’m sorry about that.
Lucy, Welcome back indeed and you are so right, correct on the ball.
Here we have the high priests saying renewable s dont work nor can not work yet they ignore it, close ranks, look for lights at the end of a closed tunnel.
it is not rocket science, just simple maths and fraud. It is no illusion that the countries with the most installed “renewables” have the most expensive electricity bar far. To see the fraud just check out in Germany, lignite use, co2 emissions and percentages.
No one surprised here. The frustrating thing is that all of the $ And effort could have been invested in fusion research, a real solution. Yes I know we aren’t there yet, but it is a scalable technology economically vice 53 million wind turbines.
A missing part of all of this discussion is this : do “conventional” energy generators recover the energy put into building them?
How long do you have to run a nuclear power station before you have recovered both the cost of building it, and, equally importantly, allowed for the cost of decommissioning it?
Decommissioning costs are by political fiat with no other reality.
“A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure…”
Complete failure? Not so. I respectfully but very emphatically disagree!
In my opinion this is an amazing landmark study. It was performed by highly respected engineers whose credentials are beyond any suspicion of an anti-renewable biase. It conclusively determined that renewables are the wrong path for Earth’s governmental entities to take in any efforts to control CO2’s impact on climate change
I predict that this study will have a profound seminal influence not only on the history and evolution of climate science, but also on the acceptance of fracking and horizontal drilling, and also on the use of energy as a tool in international politics.
Rank (double entendre) credentialism and authoritarianism, as characterizes political science.
About that second quote, which a couple of people have pointed out does not appear in the IEEE article :
Typing “Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, ” into Google (irony!) reveals that is appears in 3 places, one is here, another is at FreeRepublic and the third and possibly the original source is at TheRegister,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
It is not presented as a quote there, and has no links to indicate its source.
Its source should be given correctly here if possible.
Fixed – my mistake sorry.
Looks like the fun (subsidies, tax breaks) has run out on RE>C for Google. Since those two engineers appear to be intelligent men, they could have done the energy density and materials flow analysis in a weekend and concluded the same thing. The only difference between doing that years ago and this week, is that they now get to use Hansen as an excuse to disengage from this venture, and keep whatever money was provided by the taxpayers. If they were telling the truth, they are incompetent in their trade due to the fact that they confused technology for a primary energy source. Treating engineering with such contempt is reason enough for them to seek other employment, such as animal husbandry.
I was thinking nail care.
Mark
Wow, google does have some of the top engineers in the world… At least this research shows that their understanding of engineering and science has not be compromised by their own beliefs (unlike most of the renewable energy folks and climatologists)!
Yep, but they must’ve figured a different angle that is more profitable.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Just wait for it though.
The quote from the article: “Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation…. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.” is no longer on the website link to the article. Is the link accurate or has the article been amended?
Yes, this is confusing as the the lead article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/) which we are now reading, was blended from the review (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/) of the the original article (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change) and finally corrected by the submitting author (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/#comment-1795995).
Got that?
More/different/green/renewable electricity will not solve all of the energy challenges. As noted above, exactly what energy problem(s) were renewables going to solve?
Your amusing they want to solve them rather use them , crisis often bring ‘opportunities’ for those are are ‘looking ‘ for them.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Including within the minds of idealists.
Uh, this should be sobering for the green crowd.
“Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require both radical technological
advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the
atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.”
So, we have to find an unknown as yet source of “zero-carbon” energy, abandon fossil fuels (which currently provide over 80% of the world’s energy), AND remove billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere or we are doomed to Hansen-ageddon.
Oh, is that all?
I feel better already.
I’m hauling renewable solar energy batteries to the family farm tomorrow. We’ll burn the wood in the fireplace.
I have a six acre woodlot and plans like yours. The the NEW insurance company discovered my wood burner and immediately sent a strongly worded letter. Back to diesel, propane and electricity.
I have a question.
People who believe that Climate Change theory is true, and thus that more water vapor and clouds will block the Sun in the future, chose to switch us from fossil fuels to solar cells, which arent nearly as efficient on cloudy days?
One of the things which is missing from the pro-AGW equation, is Common Sense.
To Larry Fine:
Oh no, the claim is that more water vapor in the air will NOT result in more clouds. Or
if it does, the clouds will be at an altitude where they contribute a net warming.
What I cannot understand is how these same engineers know so little about Fourier that the have not questioned the fundamental basis of climate patterns that show it has not deviated more than usual from the general trend. In the UK even first year undergrads have to learn this. It is not as if Fourier is new either, as since it has been around since 1750 it has had time for the method to be accepted.
Et tu, Google? Then fall, CAGW-er.
1. I think the premise from which the engineers began this research was flawed. If you begin some research with a goal for overnight transformation, an attempt to change everything, everywhere immediately, of course that will require huge amounts of resources, and you will get a runaway cycle. It’s obvious. Of course there will be huge amounts of resources required to achieve that overnight switch. But what about a phased or gradual switch? One industry at a time; okay, we’ll start with public transport, in particular buses, replace the current ones in one city with electric ones. Then after buses, a years later – after we’ve studied the impact, we’ll change half of our street light into solar powered street lights, then, 2 years later, we’ll install some of those electric generators which operate using waste material in half the hospitals across a region, say the North west of England, and study the impact. In about 4 years, we’ll begin installing ground heat harvesting systems to power the heating in our primary schools, again in a specified region, say the South East. As that is rolled out across the country, we’ll increase our investment in LPG engines and technologies and give subsidies / tax breaks to motorists who switch, ahand in hand with encouraging the development of wind power technologies made from recycled materials. Oh, and what about a law that says that solar roads must be installed in all new residential and industrial road development sites across the South East and South West? If this kind of approach is replicated across other countries, there will be savings achieved. That kind of approach is precisely what is going to reduce our reliance on petroleum… NOT a theoretical overnight switch.
2. Secondly, the model assumes that you will be operating with the currently known materials. Now, I know you probably ‘currently’ can’t get away with NOT USING copper, glass, carbon fibre or neodymium to construct your solar cells, but what about finding alternatives of these. In other words, Google engineers are assuming that cheaper perhaps more natural alternatives will, or cannot be found inthe future. That’s a dangerous, if not arrogant assumption.
3. The approach is centralised and industrial, and that’s one of the problems. Instead of having this massive centralised approach to move away from petroleum, what about small individual increments, by individuals. So to give a small example, a Local council in an area (or a US State) can decide to grow bamboo in an area, and in 4- 5 years time begin to build houses using that bamboo as part of the raw materials, saving them money on using conventional materials that are more expensive. As the project develops they can incorporate other recycled items which are readily available, like used tyres, composite materials, etc…ewhich although not exactly sexy, or cheaper and cleaner on the environment.
4. It may be Google Engineers who have undertaken the research, but it doesn’t mean they are always right. How many things have Google got wrong in the past?
Your reasoning is flawed, and frankly, idiotic. Doing something that is stupid and costly on a gradual basis is still going to be, over time, stupid and costly.
Bruce, you can get personal if you like but I stand by my comment. You cannot prove something is unworkable by parading erroneous results that are impractical in real world. Let them go back to the drawing board, and calculate what a gradual phasing out would cost, and the cost-savings it would achieve, then maybe sensible people will believe them.
“One industry at a time;”
sounds reasonable, but please read len’s comment (November 23, 2014 at 4:00 am) below yours. He is improving his own energy mix with his own money. Your fatal assumption is that politicians will do something positive. More likely they will give your tax money to a political contributor who will spend it on energy intensive goods and produce a relatively small amount of conventional energy savings.
Reblogged this on A Public Eye on Energy and commented:
Sums up the essence of an article about Google’s failed RE<C project aiming to produce renewable energy cheaper than coal.
I will have to read the source article but it really doesn’t matter. I am in full geek mode. All these new toys and I don’t have to pay a hell of a lot for them, but they are scaring the large utilities in Arizona and elsewhere (net meters are a mistake, distributed generators need to pay for the grid – ancillary services are critical). So I can have my solar panels, plug in hybrid, smart meter (micro wind even as a novelty doesn’t make sense for me) at a nominal cost. Still have to think about deep cycle batteries and an inverter. After two decades of being a ‘first adopter’ of electronic junk, it’s good to have something meaty to chew on … now that we are in the ‘device’ era for dummies. LED lighting, IP Cameras, smart garage openers don’t give much back. All this and I still have the benefit of living downwind of 4 GW of Coal Generation, I swear it is greener because of it. The only regret is the legislation covering this activity in my jurisdiction won’t allow me to put in a nat gas recip (reciprocating engine) and hook it up to all this – or use the plug-in car as a generator. The recip’s are getting quite efficient and reasonably priced at a wide range of capacities. Just researching it is a lot of fun … start pulling the trigger in the spring.
Wrap a few coils of conducting material around the Planet.
So they break the electrical field and bingo!