Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish and short.
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Foreword:
The drumbeat for a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia continues. But few have pondered how we will supposedly generate 25 billion megawatts of total current global electricity demand using just renewable energy: wind turbines, for instance. For starters, we’re talking about some 830 million gigantic 500-foot-tall turbines – requiring a land area of some 12.5 billion acres. That’s more than twice the size of North America, all the way through Central America.
But where it really gets interesting is what life would actually be like in a totally renewable electricity world. Think back to Colonial Williamsburg – the good old days. The way they really were. Not the make-believe, idyllic version of history they teach in school these days. Read on, to take a journey to the nirvana of the “stabilized climate” future.
Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people twelve years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm.
Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!
Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.
The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.
With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.
Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.
But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.
First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries or cement kilns, manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.
Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.
My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized and de-developed.
Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what were we able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.
Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.
Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome – or even 18th Century London, Paris, New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.
The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.
That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioids crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time.
More good news: Polluting, gas-guzzling, climate-changing cars and light trucks will be a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll have horses, oxen, donkeys, buggies and wagons again … grow millions of acres of hay to feed them – and have to dispose of millions or billions of tons of manure and urine every year.
There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with pre-industrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.
Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.
As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.
But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.
At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.
Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies and private armies).
So how about this as a better option?
Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.
Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate.
Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. (August 2017)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Liked the cargo cult analogy
I think that’s brilliant and insightful
Thanks
A little understated.
Burt – still – ***** 5 stars!
And many thanks.
Auto
“Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.”
Isn’t that the planet where the Mad Max movies were filmed? Every movie after the original was in an environment that was more and more decimated in every possible way.
I grew up with gardening to stock the pantry shelves. People are returning to that now, partly because it’s just a good idea. I can buy fresh eggs from a small operation down the road from me.
What part of ‘get yer silly hands off my world’ do the fanatics not understand? I do NOT wish to live in the world of Mad Max, but that’s what these morons are aiming at for us. The elitists mentioned? They would n’t survive more than a few years, either. In order to feed, clothe and treat them for diseases, there has to be a viable environment to create those substances.
I sincerely hope that, some day, these idiots get their comeuppance, because it is long overdue.
I like your reference, but really it’s more like Mad Marx!
Loved reading this, pure common sense and reality. Thank you for posting the truth! These enviro-nutters are dangerous.
Don’t worry, be happy. It will never happen. We’re all too comfortable and selfish to give up the good life, and that. Includes the likes of Al Gore.
Yes, this is right on point. Perhaps worth adding that the fossil fuel free world will only be able to support a preindustrial sized population. Assume roughly 7.5 billion people must now become about a half billion, and then imagine the trip from here to there. It will not be pretty. Every tree will be potential fuel every living thinks potential food and the world will be awash in conflict and misery till the population falls to the carrying capacity of a preindustrial world. The environment will truly look post apocalyptic, which may actually be quite satisfying for the environmental religionists as it will fulfill their prophecies, but not for the reasons they claimed.
The author took liberties to make a point, and that is fair in an opinion piece. But I wonder; has anyone actually figured out what the world would look like with C02 emissions cut back to 20% of what they were in 1996 (or whatever the latest fashionable date is to peg your reduction targets on)? With only solar, wind, hydro, biofuels, and tides to power society, how many kW of electricity a year per person does that work out to? If the world had until 2050 to achieve that, what would the build out look like? If each living unit had a battery pack good for a couple of days, what would the costs be? And how does all that change when the allowable residential electricity consumption is lowered to half of what it is now?
I am sure it would be possible to run a modernish society on nothing but renewables and moderate storage, but what would society have to give up? Smartphones, Netflix, big screen TVs, air conditioning, personal vehicles, living spaces over 1200 sq ft, individual homes, imported food some or all of these things? This would be a large but important project to work out. People really don’t have a clue what they are calling for because the alarmists assure everyone they can have it all and do it with windmills. It is time to find out the truth, and put it out there.
A society run only on renewables would have drastically fewer people – hint, most would have to die…any volunteers? no? the required death list will be interesting, and the enforcement even more so. BTW, hydroelectric is a renewable even though the eco-nuts can’t accept it.
As the OT mentioned, the biggest problem is that power would be intermittent. Think about hours long rolling blackouts. There is no known storage technology which can reasonably be deployed in the next 30 years that could prevent that. The biggest causality would be refrigeration. Our civilization literally can’t survive without that.
It’s out there. Use the resources here.
I’ve been thinking about the intermittancy problem the last few days. I think it may be expensive but much more doable than I had expected. Here’s some food for thought.
In Arizona, average January solar energy hits earth around 6 KwH per day per square meter – a little more with tracking. Instead of using PV arrays, use arrays of parabolic mirrors. For 1GwH for 24 hours a day, my back of the envelope calculation (considering 50% efficiency converting steam into electricity – I’m no engineer so substitute your own numbers) might require around 2 miles square (4 sq mi). ‘But, the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day, etc,’ you say.
Absolutely! But, since we’re collecting the heat in a hot fluid, now we’re talking about storing heat, rather than storing electricity. To store the heat, you’d need a VERY big reservoir of fluid (maybe flowing through gravel) with a LOT of insulation on all sides. I’d make the reservoir large enough to store maybe 3 weeks worth of solar array output (add more insulation).
Then, once you’ve stored 3 weeks worth of heat, every day after that you can remove the same amount that goes in each day, and drive a steam generator power plant. Or, let the temperature get hot enough (more insulation) and now you can make steel and aluminum. The oversized reservoir could smooth out the availability to cover non sun hours and cloudy days.
Would this be economically practical? Possibly in southern Spain (Spain’s electricity costs around $0.24 / KwH) and maybe even in less sunny Germany, where electricity costs around $0.30. Or, maybe it would need an even higher number. But, my musings were not about whether it ought to be done – they only were about would it be possible to power our world only with solar, albeit with the lower standard of living coming out of more expensive electricity.
I think, technologically, it’s very doable. Economically feasible? I wouldn’t want to invest my money in such a venture unless the costs of the various materials came down a lot.
Even if most nations take this approach, there will be some that do not, and they would soon take over the world and do away with the far-left idiots.
In Colonial America, you traveled by wagon. Roads were muck. Every few miles you had to get out and help push the wagon out of the mud or fix a broken wheel. A common source of fatalities was being thrown from a horse or wagon. Farmers worked 12 hour days and farm fatalities were high. In the winter there were no fresh fruits or vegetables since everyone was a locovore.
People who push this stuff should be required to go live that way for a year before pestering the rest of us with such nonsense. But it is worse than pestering because they influence public policy.
In the 1920s you travelled by Model T. Roads were graveled at best away from major cities. In wet weather you stopped every few miles to push/pull your car out of the muck. Tires only lasted a few hundred miles, and punctured easily, but they were skinny so you could carry several spares. However extra wheels were bulky and expensive, so after the first flat you likely had to dismount the flat tire off the wheel yourself, and pump up the new one with a hand pump. Model T used gravity fuel feed, so you had to back up steep hills. A 30-minute drive between towns today would have taken all day back then.
My favorite road sign was: Watch for
holes inpavement.Around 1930 my grandfather took the family from Atlanta to Knoxville. Gravel all the way –took 3 days.
My mother’s family moved from South East ID (Pocatello) to Santa Rosa, CA. during the 30’s. In a Model T. (Look up stories on driving the Model T.) At one point Pappy got sick. Since he was the only one who could drive, they stopped at a ranch until he got better. They stayed in the barn. From what I have read, they were not exceptionally poor. THOSE were the Good Old Days!
And the roads were gravel. At best. Having driven over the Sierra Nevada at Donner Summit on IH 80, it’s quite a view. Their trip over Donner Summit was a lot closer to what the Donner Party experienced than my experience.
We should be building nuclear.
[on that we agree -mod]
Not yet, at least not in the US. Build CCGT, is most economic at present. If Natural gas price rises enough due to increased consumption and LNG exports, build HeLe USC coal. That way we have several decades to properly develop and deploy Gen 4 nuclear. Gen 3 doesn’t cut it here in the US, as the Voglte and Summer fiascos have just proven. Gen 3 doesn’t cut it in Europe, either, as Hinckley Point is proving.
seaice1
Why build nuclear?
Plenty of cheaply available fossil fuels still available.
And their CO2 emissions do us nothing but good.
Nor can nuclear deliver the promised “free energy forever” first promised, that justifieding build hugely expensive (but efficient) nuclear plants.
I agree with you though. We should be building nuclear but not at the cost of the Hinckley C white elephant that has taken over 20 years of planning and environmental opposition to build in the UK.
Forty years to plan and build one, single, nuclear power plant. It’s insane!
beat me to it…
CO2 sustains ALL LIFE ON EARTH…
even the CO2-hating alarmists, unfortunately. !
We should be developing fuel cells burning gasoline – or alcohol at least. That should increase the efficiency of power generation – even in electric cars – about twice.
Nonsense – we have been developing them or over a century so far – as is the notion of doubling “efficiency” whatever the latter means. I am an engineer who was involved in F. C. power generation for both stationary application and for cars (BMW, Toyota, …)
Where do you get the alcohol from?
Same as today, but we would use it twice more efficiently.
Efficiency means a thermodynamic efficiency. For the best combustion engines it is around 50% today. A fuel cell has much better theoretical limits – about 85%. Theoretical. Today we can use hydrogen, but nothing with a more complicated chemistry.
The problem with fuel cells is that they burn fuel slowly, not bang-bang-bang that you need for pistons. There is a general tradeoff of efficiency and power in all energy systems
@ur momisugly seaice1
We are building nuclear generators. Small nuclear generators that produce enough electricity to power the US Navy carriers with 5,000 sailors on board. And it doesn’t take 40 years to build one.
So, why not build several thousand of those “small nuclear generators” to power towns, counties and small cities or parts of large cities ……. instead of 4 or 5 gigantic generators that each require 40 years to be operable?
If there was a credible long-term comittment to build large nuclear plants, it could be done. It would require a long, steady process to buildup the supply line for the materials and equipment, and the education of the people who would build them. It is not something that could be done well, quickly. The first dozen plants will be expensive, as the builders re-learn the skills. There will have to be standardization of design, at a level that has been achieved in only a few places. That will be one of the most difficult issues, because there will be a lot of organizations lobbying for the chance to make money with their new, never-before-done solutions.
And the best reason to not use up all the gas and oil and coal is that they are more valuable as transportation fuel, as feedstock for fertilizer and plastics, for process heat in areas like glass manufacturing and metal refining, home heating, and all the other uses we have for petrochemicals. To get really high thermal efficiency, you need high temperatures and expensive materials, but nuclear electricity generation does not need really high temperatures, because fuel efficiency is such a very small part of the overall cost.
And of course, during all of this there will be the nay-sayers out there, writing op-eds about how they are so much smarter than anyone else, looking for whistle-blowers to prove that the technology is dangerous. And politicians trying to protect their favorite supporters.
Once we get good again at building nuclear electical plants, maybe we can turn the attention of the engineers to using nuclear heat to convert coal into transportation fuel and petrochemicals. We should be using the gas to make the nuclear infrastructure that will be sustainable, long-term.
HIGH EFFICENCY COAL AND GAS
I have to agree, an excellent article. Too bad it won’t get to those who need to read it. Too bad they wouldn’t read it even if it were available to them.
one more thing that’s too bad…..it’s going to hit hardest on the very people that want it the most
Wonderful. Makes perfect sense.
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Beyond_Fossil_Fuels.pdf
may interest…
our cargo cult’s easy access to…everything
Notice there’s only two types worried about global warming…
The ones that get paid..
…and the ones in affluent societies that have the leisure time to think about it
Global warming it a product of affluent societies
The belief that Gorebal Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system.
The belief that fossil fuels and nuclear power can be replaced by “renewable energy” is the product of a “participation trophy” society.
The belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent society.
It’s a combination of STEM ignorance, a sense of entitlement and affluence.
all true….but people that are worried where their next meal is coming from don’t even think about any of it
..only people that have leisure time have the time to think or ponder about any of those things
With one caveat…..unless they are told they are going to get paid
+10
More completely, it is the product of a democracy that is failing due to complacency regarding the practical matters that underpin society. We raise kids to look down on labour and trades and technology and seek university education regardless of its practical benefits.
This education suits kids who grow up detached from chores and oblivious to the thousands of things that need to happen and work for their lives to be comfortable.
We protect kids from these things and also from the family financial realities that can be sensibly extended to national economic policy. For people who grew up during the 30’s and understand how harsh reality can be, this is all madness. And they are right!
+1
It’s interesting to speculate about what cargo cultists would do if John Frum actally delivered. This book provides a fascinating and amusing insight. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Belong-Mrs-Queen-Worshippers/dp/1908699647
The artificial green blight vs the organic black blob. In a rational world, they would each be selected to fitness and purpose.
The link is broken.
they rerouted the link a their end.
They know they crossed the line.
This should be the head news story domestically, but the MSM will drown it out with ‘other news’.
Climate Depot has the blog post by John Gilkison in full.
Apparently, the video is to convince me that back to nature with the horses is the way to go. I’m afraid it failed miserably. The French need to try harder. Is this connected to or associate with the breeders of the workhorses? I’m guessing it is.
(In an aside, when you look through Wiki for information on this, you also find other horses breed for meat.)
French farmers, the most subsidised and cosseted creatures on the planet.
none of them were cart breeds so i thought they did rather well in the circumstances
the machinery needed some adjustments it made the job harder for them. the baler especially.
laugh all you want
thered be a damn sight more employed healthy people if we used less machinery, ive tried to buy old implements for similar uses and its so high priced i cant afford it
why? because people ARE using the better stuff,
and the other which would be restorable is sadly used as ornaments in well off peoples bloody gardens!
i have a tiny tractor and its good, but it makes me ill breathing the fumes for a few hrs
id rather have a quiet few hrs breathing the soil n smell of horse even if took 3x as long
Those who think they will rule an unmechanized agrarian society in France should think about what happened the last time the French became seriously upset with their decision makers.
ozspeakup: Feel free to breathe in soil and horse smell. Those of us with allergies to horses will pass and use the tractor. To each his own.
(I admit that for a vacation, or a very short period of time, old time farming could be “fun”. However, year after year might start to wear.)
I took the Long Suffering Mrs. Jewett to Paris some years ago. We were walking near the Hotel de Paris (City offices) and saw a butcher shop with gilded horse heads above the windows. Didn’t bother me, but Mrs. Jewett went “ewww”. She was also distressed on Saturdays. In the butcher’s window, they had bunnies and ducks in their “clothes” to make a Frenchman’s Sunday dinner. If you read any French history, you will note that during the Little Ice Age, they had a number of famines. I understand WHY they eat garden slugs. They are not bad as a vehicle to deliver garlic and butter. Amphibian appendages are OK, but a little tough. They taste like chicken.
There’s a thesis for some enterprising history grad student: “The Effect of the Little Ice Age on the Development of Nouvelle Cuisine, 17th Century Style”!
Horse meat shops in France advertise “cheval americaine”, because we take so much better care of our horses than other nations. Yet there is no longer a horse slaughterhouse in the US. We have to take horses to be slaughtered to Canada.
There was still one in TX, but my horsey friends tell me it closed. Used to be one here in the Pacific NW.
Try feeding eight billion people with early 19th century technology, when there were one billion.
That’s the idea.
Billions would have to go.
The primary tenet of Green Philosophy is that human populations must be reduced.
Why don’t the greenies practice Self-immolation to show us the way, if they really believe what they espouse? I don’t think it would add anymore CO2 to the planet, than their continued life. If it was good enough for the Buddhist monks in Viet Nam….
Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?
Is 15 acres the standard spacing requirement for a turbine? (Seems like a lot.)
It is far too low. I just looked it up. The AWEO rule of thumb is 50-60 acres per megawatt, or a range of 60-150 acres per 3 MW turbine depending on terrain details. Wind Watch says 50 acres per MW. Google can be your friend.
Also, wouldn’t that many turbines ( I realize its ridiculous) have a serious effect on the weather by wind reduction? That is energy coming out of the atmosphere after all, though I suppose most of it finds its way back eventually.
Wind shadow is real. Then tip vorticies play into the effect as these are corkscrew in translation with the wind. There are practical density limitations so 15 acres per MW is real.
A result of the California definition of Renewable Energy==>no nuclear, hydro, and wind and solar only, would lead to most of the population dying off. This is the goal of some of the hard-core greens, and their definition of Utopia is a very much smaller population by whatever means required.
Either they have an overly optimistic view of the “good old days” or have no clue what it takes to maintain an advanced technical society.
They somehow think they can enjoy their current lifestyle while the vastly reduced number of peasants serve them. Curious how elitists always think they are going to be one of the elite in the future.
An indication of which it is can be gained by reading the lyrics to Jefferson Starship songs like “we built this city on rock and roll”–where they really think hippies built San Fran and they imagine hippies building a starship. “wow man, look at the exploding rocket!! far out”
Back in the day I visited some communes/back to the earth places. They always had some source of outside money to keep them going. One was from a rock band, one from an insurance settlement for a car accident. The only self-supporting back to the land society are those like the Amish–but the progressives don’t imagine they have to give up their phone and internet. The Amish also benefit from the existence of highways, national defense, etc that they don’t pay for.
“Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish and short.”
Yes, but that is the Utopia many leftists and greens pine for. They want large segments of the population to disappear. Of course, they don’t think life would be all that bad for themselves in their Utopia. That’s because they plan to be among the ruling elites. Even in North Korea, the ruling class can be fat and happy while everyone else goes hungry.
For some reason, all the useful idiots think they will also be living in the farm house with the pigs in this green utopia. But that will not be the case. They will be out in the dark, leaky barn with the rest of us and performing manual labor during the day. Just because the useful idiots helped put the pigs in power doesn’t mean they will get to share equally in the scarce resources available. That wouldn’t leave enough for the ruling class to live in comfort. Would Al Gore give up his comfortable lifestyle if he ever succeeds in convincing the world to give up fossil fuels? Not a chance.
Good rant, Mr. Driessen! But you’re “singing to the choir”. If the numbers that will not change had made any difference to those who’ve led us down the “wind and solar” path, we wouldn’t be up to our eyeballs in solar and wind. Two numbers that will never yield are “energy density” (which limits economy of scale) and “output consistency” (which necessitates reliable backup – either generation or energy storage). Poor energy density means “too much physical material for too little power output” and that translates into “too expensive”. Add in the cost of dispatchable backup sources of generation or storage and that translates into devastatingly expensive.
I don’t think they teach that in most schools ( unis).
They should also ponder this,
Kilowatthour generated per unit of fuel used:
1,842 kWh per ton of Coal or 0.9 kWh per pound of Coal
127 kWh per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) of Natural gas
533 kWh per barrel of Petroleum, or 12.7 kWh per gallon
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=2
The current record holder for the [manpowered watts/]Hour Record is Ondrej Sosenka and the website BikeCult.com has an estimate of his average wattage during his Hour Record at 430 Watts! If Ondrej’s bike were attached to a bicycle generator and it was super efficient, Ondrej would have been generating enough power to light up 7 60-Watt light bulbs! Since I pay about 10 cents/kWh, if I were to pay Ondrej for the energy he produced over the hour he was pedaling he would have almost earned a whole nickel (430 Watts • 1 hour = 430 Watt-hours = .43 kWh)!
http://www.mapawatt.com/2009/07/19/bicycle-power-how-many-watts-can-you-produce
So a pound of coal will get you 900 watts-hours of power and the world record (2011) of human power 430 watts-hours (your results will be less).
The Rail Freight Industry calculated they could move 1 Ton of goods 530 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel. That was total fuel purchased and total tons moved total miles. Diesel fuel, retail at a truck stop across the street is $2.499. Want the job of pulling 53 tons for 10 miles for $2.50?
Anyone else having problems getting ‘tips’ to open?…it just sits there for me
CTM…I know this should be there, but I can’t post it
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change
Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
“Anyone else having problems getting ‘tips’ to open?”
I just opened it up with no problem. Using Firefox and script blockers.
This needs more promotion. Common sense!
The Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is warning that the introduction of wind and solar to the grid is cutting the income of coal and gas production plants. Income that is required for plant maintenance. Adding more renewable resources endangers the ability of coal and gas plants to stay on line 24/7 to supply adequate backup when renewables go off line.
Law of unintended consequences.
Are you sure it’s “unintended consequences”?
Ulterior is more apropos.
I’m quite sure none of this is about energy or even replacing oil, gas and coal. It’s more about billionaires and energy companies making all the money they can and then fleeing. Without tax breaks, there appears to be no reason to put the turbines up. When the PTC was temporarily halted, so was wind construction in many places. Put wind and solar on a level playing field, without tax breaks, RPS’s, etc and it dies out almost immediately. It’s not about energy, it’s about money.
FFS!
Al Gore promoting his drivel on Absolute Radio in the UK right now. 19:20 hrs.
Are they trying to boost listener numbers?
It was utterly pathetic.
Frank Skinner, comedian turned DJ, was revealed as an apologetic sycophant with no journalistic integrity. Not that one would expect him to have any journalistic integrity, or credentials, he’s a comedian. So one comedian interviewing another.
A comedian interviewing a very dangerous and influential man. He (US) can even influence student curricula in another country (UK).
Al Gore is not a comedian. He is a clown. He scares me.
Please, someone, sue Gore for peddling this nonsense.
Re: Al Gore and the Generation Foundation
Follow the money
PRI/Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century
“They have more than 1,400 signatories from over 50 countries representing $US 59 trillion of assets.”
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/FD21Century_Pressrelease_Feb2016.pdf
And
Fiduciary Duty In The 21st Century
Re: The Principles for Responsible Investments (PRI)
“The six principles were developed by investors and are supported by the UN. They have more than 1,500 signatories from 48 countries representing US $62 trillion of assets.”
http://www.fiduciaryduty21.org/partner-organisations.html
UNEP FI should be: http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/investment/FD21Century_Pressrelease_Feb2016.pdf
And UNEP FI
‘Eric Usher On 25 Years Catalysing Change’, June 2017
“UNEP FI was able to show the that financial institutions welcomed, indeed demanded action.”
Note 2016 hottest year.
http://www.unepfi.org/news/25th-anniversary/message-eric-usher
25 years since Rio 92.
According to this 2007 Annual Report:
‘Tides Canada Foundation 2007 Annual Report’
Fields of Interest Funds
Climate Change Solutions
P.5: Donors Supported Initiatives included:
Distribution of “An Inconvenient Truth” to schools throughout BC and Ontario.
http://tidescanada.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ar2007.pdf
CISION, Vancouver, April 16 / CNW
Re: Gregor Robertson & “An Inconvenient Truth”
‘BC high schools to receive Earth Day present – Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”
http://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/bc-high-schools-to-receive-earth-day-present—al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-533637071.html
CISION, Toronto, June 27 / CNW
Ontario schools to receive Al Gore’s ” An Inconvenient Truth”
Tides Canada Foundation partnered with the Province of Ontario to raise awareness about climate change among Ontario youth.
http://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases/ontario-schools-to-receive-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-533903001.html
CRA/Canada Revenue Agency
Tides Canada Foundation
Vancouver, B.C.
Public foundation
Registration: 1999-07-13
Registration no.: 868947797 RR 0001
http://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities-listings.html
Would a U.K. court decision regarding showing “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools carry any weight in Canada?
I said the same in my article back in 2004, which was reprinted in WUWT in 2009. Are some people just catching on….?
Renewable Energy, Our Downfall.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/renewable-energy-–-our-downfall/
Ralph
You forgot the massive famines that would come when there’s no more fertilizer, tractors and refrigerators.
well actually, all those needed horses, mules and oxen will provide plenty of fertilizer–the other would be more of a problem.
Thinking about all the new manual chores that would be required without fossil fuels,
made me so tired I had to stop reading and take a nap.
The author is a good writer, and able to ridicule the global warmunists in a pleasant way.
On the other hand, when I meet up with a warmunist, I slap them upside the head with a rolled up New York Times, and tell them they are delusional about CO2, which is not so pleasant ridicule.
The warmunists are so busy virtue signaling,
and patting themselves on the back,
that they never think about the reality
of a fossil fuel free existence.
That would be a tough life.
Maybe I could hook up a generator to my wife’s bicycle
and she could pedal-in-place to generate electricity for our home?
I’ll be the coxswain, using a megaphone to encourage her to pedal faster
— I think this could be a good substitute for fossil fuels
— “Wife Generators”
— why pay someone else for electricity, when you can generate your own?
Climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Richard Greene
Thanks for the link. Refreshingly direct.
HotScot
We had dinner last night with two female friends of the wife = three women and me.
One of the friends shocked us with her “new” well maintained 1980’s Mercedes S 500
a stretched version so huge it would never fit in my garage.
I commented on the huge car, with double-pane windows,
and how much fossil fuel it must burn.
During an unusually pleasant global warming conversation,
I proposed “Wife generators” (see my above comment)
as a substitute for fossil fuels and was then
banished to the kitchen to “go wash the dishes”!
These “modern” women have no sense of humor,
and I’m pretty funny at times.
My wife always compares me to Rodney Dangerfield.
She sez: “You look just like Rodney Dangerfield”.
Richard
Ah! Now there’s your big mistake, you ought to have a dishwasher. Frequently derided as the spawn of the devil by the climate alarmists, it heats only the precise amount of water (6 Litres I believe) to wash the days dishes, of a family of four, in one go. We would otherwise be washing 3 loads of dishes by hand per day, using more than 6 Litres of water from a central tank each time. It also heats the water to a temperature that kills most, if not all, pathogens, and dries the dishes. Once washed, the metal cutlery is so hot it’s uncomfortable to handle.
But then I guess unless I adopt your “Wife generator” principle I may well be forced to return to wasting water, energy, time, and risk bacterial infection from dishes washed in tepid water.
Although I’m not sure I would want to generate another wife, one’s enough thanks.
🙂
This makes total sense to me. It would even be worst as there are 200,000 ppl more every day!
Did not even touch about how it would effect food production. Lots energy is need to produce food. Also fossil fuels are used in fertilizers , herbicides and pesticides! With out them food production could be reduce to a 1/3!
In short, massive starvation!!
Try reading Harry Harrison’s ‘Make Room, Make Room!” for such a dystopia. This was filmed as “Soylent Green”. And SF followers would remember just WHAT this rationed foodstuff was made of!
“Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. … We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!”
I am not following the math. 830 million times 3 MW is 2.49 billion MW. At a 33% capacity factor, there are 2920 hours of equivalent full production. That makes 7270 billion Mw-hr, 290 times the stated value.
Right. We’d need 8.3 billion three-MW windmills to replace 25 billion MW-hours of electricity consumption.
At only 50 acres each, that is 2.6 billion square miles. The total surface area of earth is 197 million sq mi. And over much of that, the wind doesn’t blow sufficiently to generate a lot of energy. Plus, the average wind plant, even with ideal siting, works only about a third of the time. And we’d need long cables to bring power onto land from the 70% of the planet covered by water. Not to mention batteries.
Wind and solar to replace fossil fuels doesn’t even make the cut for a pipe dream.
Please check my arithmetic, just in case.
Not to mention replacing fossil fuels in transportation, lubricants, plastics and fertilizer.
8.3 billion?
Then we need to run them for only one hour every year to generate the annual electricity consumption of 25 000 TWh
/Jan
You’re right. MW-hour.
Still, it doesn’t pencil out.
There was a recent article here suggesting that 20% wind penetration would be prefectly achievable without any problems for the grid. I don’t thnk anybody is seriously suggsting that we suddenly switch to 100% renewables overnight. A modest carbon tax would shift the incentives so we get a bit more renewables and a bit less fossil fuels.
So even if there is absolutely nothing to AGW at all, this talk of going back to the pre-industrial age is simply alarmism.
“Also fossil fuels are used in fertilizers , herbicides and pesticides! With out them food production could be reduce to a 1/3! In short, massive starvation!!”
” they never think about the reality of a fossil fuel free existence. That would be a tough life.”
“Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?” etc etc.
Seaice–it might not be serious, but Bill Mckibben has a recent article out claiming 100% renewables is possible now
http://inthesetimes.com/features/2017_september_issue.html
Tesla is aiming to be the world’s biggest battery manufacturer, but is going to get there?
” Tesla is comfortably the most shorted stock in the US”
https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F17aaf7e4-803e-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd?source=next
Here is my go at the maths.
Wiki says there were 21,000 TWhr globally in 2012. This is in energy units. There are 8760 hours in a year, so that is 2.4 TW, which is in power units (TWHr/Hr=TW). This is 2.4 x 1000 x 1000 MW
We would need 1,000,000 x 2.4MW turbines to generate this at 100%. So allowing for 3MW turbines and 30-odd% capacity we need about 2 million turbines.
But here’s the problem, from a comment upthread:
seaice:
German grids run at above that 20% already and see 70% as no problem.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/german-grid-operator-sees-70-wind-solar-storage-needed-35731/
and you are right: EU renewable electricity target for 2050 is only 80%
There is no lie so silly, that Griffie won’t repeat it ad infinitum. Germany’s grid is connected to the rest of Europe.
Your comment is like claiming that since you are able to generate 30% of the power for your house using, renewables, obviously the whole world can do the same.
The math contains a glaring error — the author divided a quantity in one unit (25 billion megawatt-hours) by a quantity in a different unit (3 megawatts) and came up with a unitless number (830 million). Obviously, that’s wrong.
To get the correct answer, the units have to be made consistent. The key to that is to correctly express the first quantity as “25 billion megawatt-hours PER YEAR”. That simplifies to “2.85 million megawatts” (1 year = 8766 hours); doing the division correctly then gets the answer 2.85 million megawatts / 3 megawatts per windmill = 950,000 windmills (a lot, but not absurdly so).