Green Energy 'steals' from the Biosphere

An Opinion Piece by

Viv Forbes, BScAppGeol, FAusIMM

Scientist, mineral economist and grass farmer.

Earth has only three significant sources of energy.

First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.

Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting modern industrial societies and the vast populations dependent on them.

Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples.

Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons. They need to be told that their green energy favourites are just stealing from the biosphere – they are not as green as they claim.

The most obvious example is the ethanol industry which takes food crops like corn, sugar and palm oil and uses heaps of water and a lot of hydrocarbon energy to convert them to ethanol alcohol which will burn in internal combustion engines, but has less energy density than petrol.

See: The Water and Corn costs to produce Ethanol:

http://gazette.Com/the-water-and-corn-cost-for-a-gallon-of-ethanol/article/1506579

This process is replacing natural grasslands and forests with artificial monocultures.

The latest stupid ethanol suggestion is to power the “wanna-be-green” US Pacific Fleet using Queensland food crops. Feeding ethanol to the engines of the US Navy would consume far more food than was used feeding hay and grain to the thousands of horses used to move our artillery and Light Horse Brigades in the Great War. Sailors in the British Navy got much of their energy from Jamaican Rum, but the American navy will not run on Queensland ethanol.

More: World turning against Biofuels:

http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/02/a-world-turning-against-biofuels/

Biomass is a fancy name for plant material and vegetable trash which, if maintained in/on the soil, will provide the fertility for the next crop. Burning it reduces the humus that maintains fertile soil. The ultimate biomass stupidity is to harvest American forests, pelletise them, dry them and ship them across the Atlantic (all using hydrocarbon fuels) to burn in a UK power station. Burning biomass produces the same emission gases as coal.

Most plants will not grow without energy from the sun. Solar arrays steal energy directly from the biosphere. Some incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the panels, some is converted to waste heat on the panels, and some is converted to electricity – much of which ends up as waste heat. Solar radiation that could have given energy to growing plants is largely returned to the atmosphere as waste heat and much is then lost to space.

Some solar farms are built over land that is already desert – the rest create their own deserts in their shadow. Because solar energy is very dilute, very large areas of land must be shaded and sterilised by the panels in order to collect significant energy.

Solar radiation also evaporates water from the oceans and provides the energy for rain, winds and storms. Much of this moisture falls as useful rain when the winds penetrate land masses. Wind turbines create artificial obstacles to the wind, reducing its velocity and thus tending to create more rain near the coast and rain shadows behind the turbine walls. And they chop up many birds and bats. Again, green energy harms the biosphere.

More: The Windfarm Delusion:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7684233/the-winds-of-change/

Hydro power is one of the few green energy sources that is “grid ready” and can supply economical reliable energy. So, naturally, many greens are opposed to it. However, in most places there is competition for fresh water for domestic uses, irrigation, industry and environmental flow. Hydro power is just one more competitor for this valuable green resource.

So Green energy is not so green after all. It reduces the supply of food, water and energy available to all life on earth, and it often consumes large amounts of hydrocarbon energy for its manufacture, construction, maintenance and backup.

Green advocates are enemies of the poor. They want to burn their food, waste their water and deny them access to cheap reliable energy.

Hydrocarbon fuels are the true green energy sources. They disturb less land per unit of energy produced, do not murder wildlife and their combustion produces new supplies of water and carbon dioxide for the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere enables plants to grow faster, bigger and more able to cope with heat or drought.

It was coal, and later oil, which created and still largely supports the populations, prosperity and industry of developed nations. With a backdrop of freedom under the law, they can do the same for the whole world.

Those professing concern for the poor need to realise that Green Energy steals from the biosphere and that hydrocarbons are the real friends of the poor.

Finally, those who have swallowed the carbon dioxide scare should be told that nuclear energy is the most reliable and least damaging “low carbon” option.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
134 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bsl
June 25, 2015 3:36 am

The article states that palm oil is used to make ethanol. This is wrong. Palm oil is used to make biodiesel.
After an obvious mistake like this, I tend to be skeptical about the rest of the article.

bsl
Reply to  Solomon Green
June 25, 2015 9:13 am

The article specifically said palm oil, which is a triglyceride, and is used to form fatty acid methyl esters (typically), which can be used as diesel fuel. It would be difficult to synthesize ethanol from a triglyceride.
I would have had no technical objection if the article specified use of cellulosic byproducts of palm oil for synthesis of ethanol.

Reply to  bsl
June 25, 2015 4:42 am

bsl That tiny mistake does take nothing away from the message. Palm oil is good for many things including health benefits in cooking. If you saw the wanton destruction of thousands of square miles of forest and jungle habitat being destroyed for this monoculture, you would be disgusted. The movers and shakers in the third world ,despots, you may say care nothing of the environment or of the people they displace. I refuse to buy fuel with ethanol added, and, if some one tried to sell me palm oil diesel I would tell them to stick it up their fundamental orifice. It is less green than peeing in your drinking water but more green than cutting down forests to burn as wood chips.

bsl
Reply to  wayne Job
June 25, 2015 9:23 am

I agree that palm oil may not be the best raw material to use for manufacture of fuels. My comment was directed to a technical mistake that the author, if honest, should not have made.
I also would prefer to fuel my car with gasoline that contains, at most, some ethanol to improve the octane rating, but that is very hard to find in the US.

Billy Liar
Reply to  wayne Job
June 25, 2015 3:17 pm

Most of the gasoline now sold in the United States contains some ethanol, but the exact amount varies by region. In general, the ethanol content of motor gasoline does not exceed 10% by volume.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

richardscourtney
Reply to  wayne Job
June 25, 2015 11:26 pm

bsl:
If you were right – and as others have demonstrated, you are not – then your point would be trivial nit-picking. It is plain daft to suggest that such a triviality would discredit the entire article.
Richard

johnmarshall
June 25, 2015 5:01 am

Thanks Viv, always bang on the nail of truth. Trust a Geologist to get it right.

Bill Yarber
June 25, 2015 5:54 am

There is a major difference between Earth & Mars. Mar’s iron core is solid with no molten iron to generate a magnetic field. Mars is dead. Excessive use of geothermal heat MIGHT hasen the day Earth’s iron core completely solidifies. Solar energy if free for the next 4+ billion years. Not sure how long Earth’s geothermal energy will last but my guess is less than 1billion years. Maybe someone out there can come up with a program to estimate how much time before Earth’s core freezes solid. Then we can promote that doom and destruction scenario. 😓
Bill

Patrick
Reply to  Bill Yarber
June 26, 2015 4:23 am

Given the “wobble” created by the Sun, Jupiter and the Moon, I do no see the core will solidify at all before the Earth is consumed by the dying Sun.

Neillusion
June 25, 2015 6:44 am

A repost of calculation I did a year ago…for what it’s worth, bit rough but the idea and the numbers still make you wonder…
vol oceans 1.3 bil x cubic km (wiki)
claim 3 x oceans water exist deep in earth rock
all (?) H2O changed to H + HO with HO bound on rock. H free?
at h2o density = ~ 4 bil x cubic km H
1kg h2o = 1 x cubic m of h2o gas (?) assume.
H from 1kg H2O has same 1 x cubic m vol (when released)
1 x cubic km H2O = 1 000 000 000 000 kg
This = 1 000 000 000 000 x cubic m of H gas
x by 4 bil or 4 000 000 000
= 4 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 m cubed H gas
1m cubed = ~30 cubic ft
Estimated Natural Gas vol, as of January 1, 2013,
~ 6 846 000 000 000 cubic feet (Tcf)
= 6 846 trillion cubic feet
(that is of total world proved reserves of dry natural gas (ref eia))
Estimated H gas vol from water in deep rock…
~ 120 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 cubic ft
= 120 000 trillion trillion cubic feet.
This H probably involved in lots of Hydrocarbon production.
Subduction of plates is continual process
Hydrocarbon production is therefor a continual process
So gravity, pressure and plate movement plus rock as catalyst, converts water to H and on to hydrocarbon gas (and, in concentrated form, oil)
We burn gas – goes back to water, back to ocean one way or another, gets subducted, pressurised, split back to H and pressured back to hydrocarbon gas…
energy in the form of gas and oil, and lots of it, forever, from gravity and sea water.
So no need for organic matter in formation of oil – would be consistent with chemical composition of oil, – i.e oil made from geological and not biological process, or some combination

donb
Reply to  Neillusion
June 25, 2015 1:28 pm

Living plants discriminate against carbon-13 in favor of carbon-12 (isotopes of C). A similar process occurs for hydrogen-1 and -2. Thus anything produced from plants carry this signature. It is not the signature of the Earth’s oceans, nor of massive carbonate deposits.
Fossil fuel is produced from plants, not from subducted H2O or carbonates. Heat and pressure within the Earth greatly alter the plant chemistry. Lighter chemicals (oil & gas) can migrate away, leaving the solid, more C-rich residue (coal). Our oil refineries produce a similar process when they “crack’ heavy oil.

June 25, 2015 6:51 am

And there are the “externalities” of wind/solar. More mining, fabrication, transport and installation and the associated environmental impacts are required for green power than traditional fossil fuel. $/kW and $/MWh are indications not just of basic economics, but of efficiency of the application of resources. If it cost more it probably did more damage, maybe not where everyone can see it. But appearances are all that matter to politicians and MSM.

Bruce Cobb
June 25, 2015 7:00 am

Go Green!
No, really; just go.

robert_g
June 25, 2015 7:08 am

“Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers . . .”
Huh?

Bruce Cobb
June 25, 2015 7:30 am

CO2 is green, since plants love it. Therefore, anything that increases CO2 such as burning coal is green.

Dung
June 25, 2015 8:29 am

Somebody already mentioned that the greens and the sustainability morons always forget human ingenuity. Taking the ingenuity meme a little further; do people really think that the human race is Earthbound?
Most discussions ignore the massive resources in the Earth’s mantle but what about the Solar System, the galaxy and the universe?
The planets and asteroids in our system contain a virtually inexhaustible supply of resource within what will soon be easy reach.

donb
Reply to  Dung
June 25, 2015 1:31 pm

And VERY expensive to mine and return to Earth.

richardscourtney
Reply to  donb
June 25, 2015 11:32 pm

donb:
Mining asteroids would be very expensive using today’s technology. But it would probably cheap to do if and when it were ever needed.
Richard

Patrick C
June 25, 2015 8:43 am

Dixon, you make so much SENSE – how one would welcome it’s spread!!

Gary Martin
June 25, 2015 1:39 pm

“I usually ask for the date they went “off grid”. I am still waiting for someone to provide a date.”
They can’t! They are off grid!

jlurtz
June 25, 2015 1:47 pm

Check out jlurtz.wordpress.com for a system than uses gravity to generate electricity with a very small footprint. Also, the energy is entirely renewable. Using low temperature heat, it doesn’t “cook birds”; and if placed in a desert, a low temperature system could provide shade!

jimshu
June 25, 2015 2:13 pm

Nigel Harris – “But for oil, gas and coal, no recycling is possible and once it’s gone it’s gone.”
Wrong. Industrial emissions from coal, oil or gas can be recycled into fuel oil – apparently without additional feedstock such as soy, sugarcane or maize – by Lanzatech’s biological process. Under trial with India and China heavy industry.
Keep watching developments with this company. Maybe, they can turn oil into a ‘renewable’. :-). Now that will upset the greenies.
– Chicago, Illinois (April 22, 2015) Taiwan’s largest integrated steel maker, China Steel Corporation (CSC), has announced formal Board approval of a 1400M TWD ($46M USD) capital investment in a LanzaTech commercial ethanol facility. This follows the successful demonstration of the revolutionary carbon recycling platform at the White Biotech (WBT) Demonstration Plant in Kaohsiung using steel mill off gases for ethanol production.
LanzaTech’s gas fermentation process uses proprietary microbes to capture and reuse carbon rich waste gases, reducing emissions and pollutants from industrial processes such as steel manufacturing, while making fuels and chemicals that displace those made from fossil resources.
http://www.lanzatech.com/china-steel-corporation-approves-investment-lanzatech-commercial-project/

kim
Reply to  jimshu
June 25, 2015 7:16 pm

How ’bout a Boilermaker made from ‘steel mill off gases’. Prosit!
================

Stan
June 25, 2015 4:29 pm

This is all 100% correct, but unfortunately greenies and CAGW scaremongers do not want to help the world’s poor, they just want to continue their comfortable first-world lives in comfort at the expense of hard-working taxpayers, jetting around to conferences and using their power and money to entrench their lifestyles. It’s very simple.