Life in a fossil-fuel-free utopia

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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

218 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Björn
August 13, 2017 12:33 pm

Hate to be a party spoiler but 830 million x 3 MW (wind turbine namplate power) = 2490 million MW = 2490 TW. Assume a realistic capacity factor of 0.20 (20%) on an annual basis and you get 498 TW of installed power capacity , or something like 450 times the currently installed power capacity in the U.S. So land need would only be 12.5 x 10^9 / 450 acres or little less than 280 million acres or 0.45% of land area in US.

Reply to  Björn
August 13, 2017 12:53 pm

The math is right if we use the windmills only 10 hours per year.
/Jan

Björn
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 13, 2017 1:59 pm

what math??? mine or mr. Driessen’s

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 13, 2017 2:10 pm

Sorry, there should be a /sarc.
Driessen’s math is correct if the windmills are used only 10 hours per year, but that is silly.
Your math is correct

MarkW
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 14, 2017 6:54 am

That may be more than they are getting from the windmills around here.

RPDC
August 13, 2017 12:40 pm

Or a simpler version – all life on earth ends during the next cooling period, as CO2 falls below 150 and C3 plants stop growing.

August 13, 2017 1:12 pm

Loved the article. Just a couple of things to add. Using the MW production number used and the 3MW capacity per turbine, results in 8.3 Billion turbines required to meet that demand. Then using the acreage per turbine results in 125 Billion acres. I have done some research and the average amount of land needed for a turbine is as little as 30 acres per turbine and as much as 111 acres per turbine. There is a lot more to add. But you get the picture.

MrZ
Reply to  John Linton
August 13, 2017 1:45 pm

Hi John!
You have all hours of the year to produce the 25.000TWh so you should divide by 8760 at 100% efficiency or 1750 at 20%. Still many windmills required but not as extreme

August 13, 2017 1:20 pm

Wind and solar are not the alternatives to fossil. With aneutronic Focus Fusion we could supply ALL the world’s energy needs via electricity, including intense heat for processing materials, plasma torches for eliminating all pollutants and at less than a tenth the cost of coal. Yes, it needs more research. But we have made great progress on a research budget of $600,000 a year. If we spent 100 times that much on this research it would be less than the world spends in 20 minutes on oil. See more here: http://www.lppfusion.com

andyd
Reply to  Eric Lerner
August 13, 2017 4:29 pm

I would like to read more, but that web-site is a shocker.

Reply to  andyd
August 14, 2017 1:50 am

andyd
Agreed.

Reply to  Eric Lerner
August 14, 2017 10:27 am

Greetings Mr. Lerner!
I have followed your story for several years and I am very impressed by the scope and depth of your approach to fusion. Unfortunately, governments and their agencies are more interested in photo ops and big project job creation like impractical “Green Energy”, so you and similar small scale fusion developers like General Fusion and others are left to fend for themselves. I believe that you are doing important work which will hopefully lead to a successful fusion machine and also will provide important new information on fusion control. I will update myself on your progress and I wish you great success going forward!

August 13, 2017 1:26 pm

Another Driessen masterpiece. Thank you Paul.
Loving the comments…
“Curious George on August 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm:
Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?”
Lol.

August 13, 2017 1:32 pm

Left-wing Liberal Democrats and the Main Stream media have no sense of numbers, science and reality.
That’s why they think we can power the world’s economy on wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.
Left-wing Liberal Democrats seem to have never been in factories or farms and think food
comes from grocery stores, electricity from wall sockets, and “clean energy” from magic.
The media is run by Left-wing liberal democrats and they treat
it like a propaganda machine instead of an information source.
Time was, people warning the world “Repent – the end is nigh!” were snickered at as fruitcakes.
Now they own the media and run the schools.

August 13, 2017 1:36 pm

Utopia for some, high electricity bills for the rest
Wind farms paid millions not to produce electricity
“More than £300m has been paid in compensation for wind turbines to lie idle in Scotland, sparking calls for an end to the green energy ‘subsidy junket’.
Scotland’s 3,000 wind turbines produce more energy than is needed north of the border. The remoteness of many wind farms means the power they generate cannot be transported to England and Wales.
Consequently, turbines are routinely powered down to avoid producing excess energy, yet operators are still paid generous subsidies via consumers’ bills”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wind-farms-that-lie-idle-and-get-millions-5kfgm8bd8

Griff
Reply to  vukcevic
August 14, 2017 12:37 am

You do know that when UK power grids need to curtail power for any reason, they usually turn off wind, since its easier than powering down (e.g) a coal plant? The turn offs are often to do with grid requirements not to do with wind itself.
besides, the UK is actively upgrading its HVDC lines out of Scotland so that when there is ‘excess’ wind, it can now be shipped south. The Western link opens this year…

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 8:30 am

As ever Griff, your mastery of perverse logic and dissembling are both manifest. What happens currently is that most of the time coal is kept on the back burner (expensively and sub-optimally) and other faster response generation is used to balance the erratic wind. Wind has not replaced coal burning, gas has (and some bio). If it weren’t for the windmills, and the investment had been put in anything else, we could have easily closed all the coal by now. How ‘turning off’ wind and still paying for it, is sensible or something to boast about, only you would know. Also good of you to bring to our attention the enormous cost of upgrading lines to connect the remote wind as well – another vast expense caused by wind – the most pointless and expensive electricity generation ever devised.

Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 11:08 am

A more bass-akward assessment of the “virtues” of wind energy cannot be imagined beyond what Griff has offered. In reality ( write this down, Griff), wind is fantastically impractical and fickle, in particular-not blowing when high pressure systems bring hot days or cold nights.
Therefore, it cannot be counted on for base load power as even Green people like to have heat in winter. As a result, reliable power MUST be made available from, coal, gas or nuclear stations so that it is available when NEEDED.
So, no matter how much wind energy we attempt to tap, it requires a duplicate amount of reliable power to be available. And paid for!
This essentially means that we ALWAYS PAY DOUBLE for construction of “Green” solar or wind energy. This is a capital cost which has time value and burdens the grid cost structure ever after.
We pay for power we do not get. It is an impractical idea championed by impractical people for a multiplicity of reasons which include; Greed, stupidity, virtue signalling, political opportunism and a sprinkling of misplaced idealism. It hurts people. Mostly the people who struggle already.

fxk
August 13, 2017 1:44 pm

Our side scare mongering? Please… The article would have been much better had the author hadn’t taken to flights of apocalyptic fantasy.
The available electricity will be diverted to manufacturing. There will be enough power to mine, smelt and forge. That’s part of the 25 billion megawatts in use already. Yes, there won’t be enough real estate for all the 3 megawatt turbines and solar panels. The author is figuring that technology will not go forward between now and when the last coal/oil/gas furnace is shut down.
Forget growth. Forget air conditioned homes. forget 24×365 electricity for home. We will become a daylight society – any battery capacity will go to necessary services – hospitals, charging farm equipment, and keeping government vehicles on the road. Ships will be gone – government will not allow nuclear technology from the Navy ships to be put in non-navy vessels. And producing nuclear fuel is terribly energy consuming, from mining to refining to usable nuclear fuel.
We won’t be back in 1900, but we won’t be mobile, nor will we have many of the luxuries we call daily needs. Surely what electricity would be available won’t support an increasing population. Famine and disease is how nature culls the herd. Glad I won’t be around for that eventuality.

Mike
Reply to  fxk
August 13, 2017 8:40 pm

The Navy will, amd has allowed nuclear powered merchant ships. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
So that could easily happen again

Reply to  Mike
August 14, 2017 11:40 am

Take a look at the scuzzy freighters running around the world under flags of convenience and then tell me how good an idea it would be if they all had reactors in them!

Gloateus
Reply to  Mike
August 14, 2017 11:47 am

There have only been four nuclear-powered merchant cargo ships, of which just one remains:
Savannah, United States (1962–1972)
Otto Hahn, Germany (1968–1979; re-powered with diesel engine in 1979)
Mutsu, Japan (1970–1992; never carried commercial cargo)
Sevmorput, Russia (1988–present)

Reply to  Mike
August 14, 2017 7:00 pm

I had two friends who worked on the Savannah. It worked, but it was only a demonstration that the power plant was feasible. It was never intended to make money. So, it didn’t.

Griff
Reply to  fxk
August 14, 2017 1:19 am

considering a number of mines today already use solar power, I’m quite sure there’s always going to be enough power for the electricity used in mining.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Griff
August 15, 2017 9:03 am

Griff, down here in South Africa, we have a LOT of mines. And, because of assorted (probably illegal) faffing around, our power system can be – let’s say – somewhat erratic. And when a mine’s power fails, so does the hoists and the ventilation. Therefore, to avoid killing THOUSANDS of underground workers, most deep mines here have now installed their own generation systems. Fossil fuelled, of course – just think of the power requirements to force cooled air into a mine, and to lift thousands of tons of men and material out! AND all this has to be done 24/7/365 – erratic power (e.g. renewables) simply don’t make the cut.

Björn
August 13, 2017 1:55 pm

According to the CIA factbook,total global production of electricity ( for year 2014, not up to date though) was 23.14 trillion-kWhours for the whole year and total global consumption ( i.e. the demand ) of the same was 21.36 trillion-kW-hours for the whole year. Dividing both numbers by 8760 ( = 24*365 hr/year ) give us the production and consumption in thousand ( 1 kWh = 1000 Wh ) of TW-years so 23.14/8760 ~ 0.00264 (x10^3) = 2.64 TW-years and 21.36/8760 ~ 2.44 TW-years , and from same source the installed global genration (nameplate) capacity fot electricity ( in 2014 ) was 6.3 billion kW or 6.3 TW. At full 100% generation for a year that means 6.3 TW-years , so the real combined capacity factor for all types of generation is ~ 2.64/6.3 = 0.419.. or c.a 42%.
The author of the article probably meant 25 billion megawatt-hours of annual electricity not 25 billion megawatts of real power capacity and then bothched his calculations , to generate 25 billion mW-hours of annually you only need around 2.85 TW installed real capacity of current mix of generators or 2.85/0.42 ~ 6.8 TW of namplate capacity. If all were wind of course then at least 3 and more liklely 5 times of nameplate capacity would have to be available so we would need >> 30 TW of wind nameplate capacity and that translates to (30 TW) / (3 MW) =(30×10¹²) / (3×10⁶) turbines = 10⁷ turbines or 10 million turbines not 830 million turbines.

Björn
Reply to  Björn
August 13, 2017 2:20 pm

And 10 million turbines x 15 acre/turbine = 150 million acres ~ 607 thousand km². About the area France ( deduct few swimmingpools to equate )

Frank
Reply to  Björn
August 13, 2017 7:59 pm

Yep. I came up with a need for about 3 million turbines. No problem, Paul Driessen is only off by a factor of 300 or so.
David MacKay (Physics Prof and Chief Scientific Advisor to British DECC) has an excellent online (and published) book on renewable energy. He discusses the renewable power on the human scale – per person. When the book was published (2007), onshore wind in Britain provided about 2 W/m2 (2 MW/km2), off-shore 3 W/m2, and the new larger turbines about 30% more per unit area since they need to be spaced further apart. So perhaps today we can get 3 MW/km2 or 1 turbine per km2. There are 247 acres/km2. So Paul is off by another factor of 10 or so – in the opposite direction this time.
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
http://www.withouthotair.com/c4/page_33.shtml
http://www.withouthotair.com/cB/page_265.shtml
Above Ristvan cited advocates of wind power who claim that one can get by with 1/5 to 1/2 as much land per turbine. Google is your friend, but only when you know who to trust. MacKay shows calculations based on real wind farms.
“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.”
MacKay has an interesting approach to renewable energy – breaking it down to energy per unit area per day or energy per day per person. MIght help with Driessen’s errors of orders of magnitude. MacKay likes units of kWh/d/person, with kWh being familiar from electricity bills. A typical person in the developed world is using about 100 kWh/d (250 kWh/d/p in the US). Driving 50 km/d consumes about 40 kWh/d (4 L) of gasoline.

Griff
Reply to  Frank
August 14, 2017 1:21 am

MacKay sadly passed away last year…
however his pioneering work, with the emphasis on real figures, has now been outdated by developments in the technology… e.g he didn’t allow for the standard offshore UK wind turbine being an 8MW one, with 12MW designs coming soon, nor for the amount of energy saving or demand reduction, advances in tidal power and much else.

August 13, 2017 2:11 pm

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.

You have the numbers wrong Paul
3,2 million 3MW windmills with 30% utility factor are enough to produce 25 billion MWh annually.
Not 830 million.
Jan

Chris Hanley
August 13, 2017 2:28 pm

It’s said that during the centuries following the destruction of Rome, people lived amongst the ruins believing they were built by giants.comment image
I’m fairly old now, I remember being taken to see the movie Destination Moon in the early ‘50s, the popular culture of following decade full of comic books movies etc. featuring space fantasy, it was an exciting image of the future full of promise that in many respects was realised.
I pity the kids of The First World today, poorly educated in a general sense and fed a vision of a dismal future, I blame my own generation.
Great essay.

Griff
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 14, 2017 5:08 am

There is an excellent museum at the ‘Crypta Balbi’ in Rome which is essentially the history of just one city block…
https://www.coopculture.it/en/heritage.cfm?id=50
Highly recommended – but to get to the point, it has reconstructions of the site in the 7th/8th century showing tiny wooden Gothic farms amongst standing ruins and columns 50 foot or more high…
‘enta geworc’ or the work of giants, in the Anglo Saxon.
(I do not expect a similar scenario to repeat due to renewable energy – but this piece of the past is truly fascinating)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 6:30 pm

You didn’t fly by chance Griff?

MrGrimNasty
August 13, 2017 2:30 pm

How long without power before the looting & riots start, no power very rapidly = no food, water, sanitation.
The failure of the renewable (hydro) electricity supply in Venezuela was no small factor in its chaos.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-electricity-crisis-in-venezuela-a-cautionary-tale

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
August 14, 2017 11:46 am

Venezuela is only a Socialist paradise. That’s just half as bad as the eco-Socialist one that’s being foisted on us.

Michael S. Kelly
August 13, 2017 2:49 pm

I haven’t checked the math on the windmill land area, but will assume it is correct. What would be the environmental impact of taking that much energy out of the air? It strikes me that it would locally reduce the air velocity at the surface to the point at which transport of spores, mold, yeast, pollen, and nutrient dust would be impaired. What would be the effect on weather? Evaporation of water from the ground would slow, as would convective cooling of the ground. A reduction in airborne particulates and even bacteria would have some effect on cloud formation, which requires such nucleation sites. Do we even know the full range of questions to ask? It wasn’t until recently that we discovered that bacteria in the air have an effect on cloud formation. I doubt that we understand even the rudiments of the convectively-driven ecosystem.
There may be no effect, or just a small one. But if the latter, it would seem likely that when done on such a vast scale that whatever effects there are would accumulate non-linearly. I leave it to the imaginative reader to create a suitable apocalypse scenario.
In the meantime, I’d just sit back and shake my head in wonder when a swarm of tornadoes took out 10% of the US power grid, and started us on our death spiral…

August 13, 2017 3:09 pm

Good article.
We knew this 30 years ago and published the following conclusions 15 years ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/26/britain-faces-energy-crisis-engineers-warn-green-isnt-working/comment-page-1/#comment-2130660
[excerpt]
The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-primary-energy-section.pdf
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is
86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
We also write in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Regards to all, Allan

David L. Hagen
August 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Calling Professional Dreamers (aka inventors & entrepreneurs) with a vision for “better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies” to “ replace fossil fuels.”
Earth is finite. Fossil fuels are finite. They provide the essential bridge gap fuels or bicycle “training wheels” for us to learn, grow and prepare for sustainable futures for our grandchildren.
What is essential to replace today’s bridge gap fossil fuels for sustainable future with cost effective power and fuel?
Invert Pessimist Driessen’s distopia to provide dispatchable solar power cheaper than coal.
E.g., the magnitude of the tasks needed:
“25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity”
Double that to say 50 B MWh to provide for economic development.
Double that for 50% incident solar collected.
Multiply by 2.5 for 40% conversion to electricity to 250 B MWh thermal or ~900 B GJ incident sunlight.
At 9 GJ/m2 in high desert regions need about 900 B m2. Or 900,000 km^2.
Say 50% ground coverage, gives about 2 million km^2 needed.
I.e., about 22% of the 9 million km^2 covered by deserts.
Yes that is a challenge, but its not impossible.
For detailed studies, see Desertec and similar efforts on solar power in deserts.
Include hydro and add nuclear to help baseload reliability etc.
Yes we do need Eeyores (See Winnie the Pooh), and Puddleglums (See CS Lewis’ The Silver Chair) to test ideas.
Don’t despair. Take a hard nosed look at what is needed.
As a research engineer, I see that its possible.
Lets go out and do it.

fredar
Reply to  David L. Hagen
August 13, 2017 5:20 pm

What do you mean by “Earth is finite” and “sustainability”. Lots of people use these nice sounding but vague terms but don’t seem to bother explaining what they actually mean. Fossil fuels are finite, that is true, but so is sand. To me “sustainable future” sounds like energy poverty for most of the world. I don’t want my children to live in a future of increased poverty and government intrusion. Real question is how much coal, oil, and gas we have left? I noticed that enviromentalists never seem to ask this question. Possible because all their previous predictions of “peak oil” and resources running out have been horribly wrong. Just like Julian Simon said in his book “Ultimate resource” Free market and the people themselves are the ultimate resource and the last thing you want to do is to harm the people with disasterous policies.
Fossils fuels are not perfect but just like the article said, neither are these renewables and we should stop worshipping them. Cheap energy is one of the most important requirements for a good life. Won’t the better solution be to let cheap energy, free market and people’s own minds do the trick, instead of forcible transfer of fossil fuels to more expensive and less reliable renewables when these are not ready?

fredar
Reply to  fredar
August 13, 2017 5:28 pm

And if fossil fuels cause global warming and “climate disruption” (which is still disputed) richer world will be able to cope with it better. Nature is not our friend. Its has never been, it never will be. Our ancestors hid in caves in order to get away from nature. We should stop this silly superstitious nature worship and focus on improving human lifes. It’s weird how it’s wrong if humans pollute with factories, but if nature does the same thing with volcanoes, it’s fine. Same with earthquakes and meteor strikes. All these cause massive damage but you don’t see enviromentalists protesting these and demading government intervention! I think the key is adaptability not mitigation. People die from storms and earthquakes because they are too poor to protect themselves.

fredar
Reply to  fredar
August 13, 2017 5:31 pm

To clarify: real question with global warming is not do humans cause it, but how dangerous it will be. Do the cost outweight the benefits? This is still heavily disputed. However poverty and what it causes is clear.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  fredar
August 13, 2017 6:56 pm

fredar
Evauate what I said, not what I did not address.
By “Earth is finite” I mean fossil fuels are limited, will peak and decline.
By sustainability I mean supply for >1,000 years.
On coal resource e.g., See Höök, M., Tang, X. (2013) “Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change: a review”
Energy Policy, 52: 797-809 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.046
They suggest global coal/fossil fuels may peak around 2040-2060. See fig 6, 8.
Jianliang Wang Lianyong Feng Xu Tang Yongmei, Bentley Mikael Hook, 2017.The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis PII: S0016-3287(15)30069-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.04.007
Fig 1 suggests fossil fuels peaking around 2030.
Fig. A1 and Fig A2 suggest oil and gas constraints by 2020 and mid 2030s.

That suggests we need “all hands on deck” to develop alternatives asap.

Reply to  fredar
August 14, 2017 11:58 am

Capitalism has always found solutions to issues of scarcity. Only the interference of government ( peopled by non-expert control freaks) can slow Industry and Creativity in this regard. Reducing government interference to a minimal, necessary influence is how we continue to move forward.
This from someone who is barely a capitalist but understands the strength of its mechanisms.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  David L. Hagen
August 13, 2017 7:36 pm

By “dispatchable” solar presumably you mean we just rotate the planet at will, right?
Storage doesn’t have an answer. Or maybe we have TW links spanning the globe with 3-4x nameplate capacities to make up for it. Sounds cheap and easy.
Or we could realize nuclear energy is the ultimate primary energy source and stop screwing around.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 13, 2017 8:06 pm

Tsk Tsk There are many more types of storage. We have just begun to develop them. I think future solar thermal energy storage will likely become the cheapest. See also compressed air energy storage.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 13, 2017 8:22 pm

Sounds like a waste of precious time and wealth better employed on developing nuclear.comment image

Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 14, 2017 12:55 am

There are many types of storage. All have been developed to the point where they were found wanting – till magic money trees sprouted in the deserts of wind turbines and solar panels.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 14, 2017 6:07 am

Chris Hanley That EROI graph only shows historical not future technologies.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 14, 2017 7:30 am

Chris How do you make high pressure nuke’s cost effective?

[After two nuclear plants in South Carolina were cancelled:] “We continue to believe that the problem with new nuclear (small modular units excepted) power plants is not that they generate electricity with nuclear fission. The difficulty is economic. The nuclear units are expensive, base load generating units in a world where production of electricity is becoming less expensive and increasingly decentralized. Base load power plants (and especially nuclear ones) are, in general, must-run, inflexible price takers. Going forward there will be less need for those facilities regardless of how they are fueled. Furthermore, the builder of a nuclear plant must bet an enormous sum on the need for electricity a decade hence, when the plant is completed. Given the uncertainty in power demand and prices, that is a gamble uncompensated in the regulatory process.
By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned
Possibly mass produce small modular low pressure units?

ccscientist
Reply to  David L. Hagen
August 14, 2017 8:00 am

Solar only works in some places (not Canada, for example). No sun at night so batteries are needed–massive massive batteries which have been “just around the corner” for 30 years. OR we need the same capital equipment (coal or gas) for night time that we have now–which then becomes inefficient ($/Kw). All the countries with the highest renewables fraction have by far the highest electricity costs (e.g., Denmark, Germany). By the way, Denmark and Germany can only function with such a high fraction because they are linked to the nuclear in France by their grid.

Griff
Reply to  ccscientist
August 14, 2017 10:13 am

That isn’t true.
Germany exports more to France than it imports.
https://energytransition.org/2015/06/is-germany-reliant-on-foreign-nuclear-power/
And this is interesting showing German exports in one winter month
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/02/04/9967130/german-power-market-takes-over-as-largest-net-exporter/

David L. Hagen
Reply to  ccscientist
August 15, 2017 5:34 pm

Griff Germany’s exports during peak renewable generation are irrelevant in face of only only 3% Solar/Wind generation during it 2016 December winter doldroms. Germany experienced the extremes of cloudy weather with midwinter “doldrums” on 12 th December 2016 which combined to reduce wind and solar power to 3% of grid demand – while France and Spain imported power to meet high heating demand.
See: The End of the Energiewende? http://energypost.eu/end-energiewende/

Reply to  David L. Hagen
August 14, 2017 11:51 am

Please explain where all the copper will come from for all these wind generators and their attendant interconnection. Also what will be their lifespan and so, what portion of society’s resources (labour and material) will be required to keep them operating.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
August 15, 2017 1:45 pm

David L. Hagen wrote:
Calling Professional Dreamers (aka inventors & entrepreneurs) with a vision for “better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies” to “ replace fossil fuels.”
Hello David,
At this time, 86% of global primary energy is from fossil fuels, and the remaining 14% is mostly hydro and nuclear – solar and wind power account for less than 2%, and would be near-zero if they were not forced into the grid ahead of much cheaper, reliable dispatchable power.
Sooner or later there will be better energy systems, but first we have to reverse the lunacy of forcing non-dispatchable wind and solar power into the grid ahead of reliable, dispatchable cheap energy. This idiotic practice should stop now, because it is utterly imbecilic and counter-productive.
All it does is drive up energy costs and reduce the reliability of the grid. It does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, which, btw, do NOT cause dangerous global warming.
Regards, Allan

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
August 15, 2017 5:44 pm

Allan M.R. MacRae
Yes there has been political foolishness. Not addressing that.
Companies are bidding declining Solar PV in Dubai. See: Lowest-Ever Solar Price Bid (2.42¢/kWh) Dropped In Abu Dhabi By JinkoSolar & Marubeni Score
Try to addressing my post of how to make dispatchable solar cheaper than fossil grid power – where it makes sense to do so – in deserts with high solar insolation.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
August 16, 2017 3:40 am

Hello David,
Dispatchable means you can turn the power up and down based on demand. In the absence of grid-scale storage, how can solar or wind power be dispatchable?
Having said that, 2-3 cents/KWh is encouraging, IF it turns out to be real. I have always held out more hope for solar than for wind power, because solar has more room for technological improvement.
At current natural gas prices in North America, 2-4 cents/KWh is what fully dispatchable, gas-fired power costs, Still no contest, imo, until solar is somehow made dispatchable for the same price – that is the Holy Grail.
Regards, Allan

Patrick MJD
August 13, 2017 4:28 pm

“…500-foot-tall turbines…”
I guess they would use a wind/solar charged battery powered flying device to conduct maintenance?

Griff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 14, 2017 1:23 am

Not sure how tall the possible 20Mw turbine mentioned here would be..
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/15/siemens-looks-toward-next-generation-10-20-mw-wind-turbines/

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 3:18 am

Solar/wind powered crane? Where did all the steel come from?

August 13, 2017 4:48 pm

I can handle how they corrupt data and science. It also happens in other fields like medical studies, social psychology, … Science can recover from that because science is fundamentally constrained by the real world.
Climate hysteria, attracts so many scientific illiterates to the activists ranks. Illiterate, in one way or another, in the: science, engineering, economics, or politics. The policies they promote are so harmful to human welfare. That is what scares me.
I don’t think anyone realistically sees a billion wind turbine world. Renewables are just their argument against fossil fuel and nuclear power. They have a kind of Luddite ressentiment of prosperity. In practice you’ll get Germany with its coal power and (soon to be) 8-year period of no real reduction in CO2 emissions but triple the electricity price of the USA or China. Somehow this hippy argument against fossil fuel (renewable energy) became government policy. Insane government is about as insane as humanity gets. Very scary.

TRM
August 13, 2017 4:48 pm

You are welcome to come live with those of us who chose LFTRs for energy. We had to buy the first bunch from China as they were selling them cheaper than we could make them but they run great.
PS. You don’t have bring thorium as we’ve got lots 🙂

GREG in Houston
August 13, 2017 7:02 pm

Well, OK. If i all happened as prophesied… maybe. But isn’t the above a bit like the CAGW screed? Only the other side of the coin??

Retired Kit P
Reply to  GREG in Houston
August 13, 2017 7:57 pm

You are correct Greg. It a hoot that many WUWT posters think that the pack of lies on one side of the issue can be negated by whoppers on the other side.
Paul Driessen is not in the energy industry but in the misinformation industry.

Retired Kit P
August 13, 2017 7:50 pm

“instead of 4 or 5 gigantic generators that each require 40 years to be operable?”
Just for the record, nuke and coal stationary steam plants are not very big. About the size of a Walmart.
The amount of electricity produced is gigantic. The is the beauty of steam.
How do I know? For the last 8 years of my career I was part of the ‘new reactors’ design team. This included working at a almost completed 1600 MWe nuke plant in China.
Like me, about a third of the design group, got there start as US Navy operators. The biggest difference is that stationary power plants have a containment building and the navy operates reactors out at sea away from people.
When it comes to fossil fuel, it is not that we are running out of coal or gas but the huge and vulnerable infrastructure to deliver it to the power plant.
Think of nuke plants as a hedge against failure of the fossil fuel delivery system.
In the PNW, fossil fuel for power plants is imported and near capacity. For this reason, the wind farms are useful in meeting the need for power and reducing natural consumption. I would have preferred that the 4 nuke plants started were finished.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Retired Kit P
August 14, 2017 1:41 am

“… the wind farms are useful in meeting the need for power and reducing natural consumption …”.
============================
“Reducing natural consumption” what’s that mean, pricing electricity used for heating etc. out of reach of the less well off?

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 14, 2017 12:05 pm

‘natural gas’
Sorry for the typo and the confusion.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
August 14, 2017 12:06 pm

Think of fossil fuels as a way to get emergency equipment to the site of a reactor accident.

August 13, 2017 9:01 pm

Stossel did a great segment on ecotourists in Hawaii. They’d come and work for a little bit, but quickly lose interest. If it involves inconvenience, people will eventually complain.

August 13, 2017 9:37 pm

The article is wrong by a factor of 300!
As several others an I have commented, the right number of windmills should be about 3 million, not 830 million.
The article should be corrected and updated.

Tom Connor
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 14, 2017 9:04 am

Are you allowing for the low capacity factor of wind? How about the fans needed to charge batteries for when the wind doesn’t blow?

Reply to  Tom Connor
August 14, 2017 12:34 pm

That is taken into account. 830 million is one for every nine people on this planet. Do you really think nine people with average energy consunption in the world use as much energy as a 500 feet Windmill produce?
One such windmill produce enough electricity for 300 houses

James Francisco
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
August 20, 2017 1:31 pm

I agree Jan. The article should be corrected. I am about a week late for this artical. This artical is a fine example of many peer reviewed papers that get published that shouldn’t have. Some very knowledgeable commentors missed your very easy sanity check you made below. One giant win turbine for every 9 people on the earth is a bit much. I hate to admit that I didn’t catch the huge error either. Glad I didn’t jump on the comment bandwagon to soon, I would hate to have to apologize to Griff. A similar thing happened many months ago with a determination of the number of power plants required in the UK to replace ff heating and power electric vehicles. We don’t want to be like the CAGW crowd that blindly accepts wrong information. I hope by inserting Anthony Watts name here that it will be noticed by him or his moderators and be corrected.

Griff
August 14, 2017 12:26 am

Well lets see – Germany, UK, Denmark, Spain, Italy -highly industrialised modern, developed countries running on up to 35 to 40% renewables, no collapse, no grid failures, whole country not covered in turbines.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 3:01 am

“Griff August 14, 2017 at 12:26 am
…Spain, Italy -highly industrialised…”
Really? Spain, ~25% unemployment. ~45% unemployed youth, Italy, similar. And now these countries are turning away their major source of income, tourists!

Griff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 14, 2017 4:30 am

which has nothing at all to do with renewables – and you don’t mention UK and Germany ?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 14, 2017 6:29 pm

“Griff August 14, 2017 at 4:30 am”
When industry shuts down due to expensive energy, what do you think happens to employment rates? Spain, Italy and South Australia (SA) have been following the same path, SA ahead by a long margin in the race to the bottom. GM Holden, pulled out of SA citing energy costs as one of the drivers. And you say renewables have nothing to do with that.

ccscientist
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 8:04 am

UK is in no way 35% renewables. Denmark and Germany have 3X the electricity prices as US (and rely on France nuclear to stabilize grid). 3X price means my $1800/yr electricity bill becomes $5400–ouch!

Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 9:00 am

Germany keeps burning lignite. Being tied to the European grid, there is NO way to tell how much they rely on renewables. The number is bogus. Always has been. (Germany and Spain are smaller than some states in the USA and tiny compared to China. Maybe look at a LARGE country and see how that works.)

Griff
Reply to  Sheri
August 14, 2017 10:11 am

Except that imports and exports of electricity, by country, to/from Germany are tallied.
(It now exports more to France than it imports)
And the first lignite plants are now on the closure schedule.

Reply to  Sheri
August 14, 2017 10:31 am

Griff: Interesting how we both read the news and your conclusion and mine are so very different. As far as I have read, more and more lignite plants are going to keep the grid from collapsing. As far as wind and solar, physics says it’s not feasible. If it were, we would never have changed to oil and gas. You can’t make energy from weather work without bending reality to fit the scenario. It is what it is.

Reply to  Sheri
August 14, 2017 12:08 pm

Griff’s belief transcends mere physics!

Griff
Reply to  Sheri
August 15, 2017 2:24 am

Sheri – there aren’t more and more lignite plants in Germany…
The last German coal plant, ever, Dateln 4, is 75% built and they are arguing about whether to even finish it.
The power companies in the majority of EU countries have pledged ‘no more coal plant’ from 2020.
https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-plant/
There is a list of coal plants for retirement.
Yes, we seem to have different streams of information… I look at websites for the electricity, coal and power industries for my information, not news sites.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
August 16, 2017 5:09 pm

“developed countries running on up to 35 to 40% renewables”
LIAR.

J.H.
August 14, 2017 1:03 am

Yep…. This ecofascistic anti hydrocarbon movement is akin to the “Xhosa Cattle Killing Movement” back in 1856-57….. They killed all their cattle and burned their crops and houses to appease the Gods and purify themselves so that the Europeans would be driven from the land by the ancestors….. Predictably, the Xhosa starved in their tens of thousands and rendered themselves utterly destitute….
Seems we have a group that wants to do the same thing, but with our energy production rather than cattle and crops.
http://www.siyabona.com/eastern-cape-xhosa-cattle-killing.html

August 14, 2017 1:31 am

Total energy used in 2014 according to wiki was 109,000 TWh/y, which puts a steady state plant generation at 109,000/(365×24) = 12 TW, not 25,000 TW.
12 TW is around 4,000 medium sized nuclear plants, world wide. Very doable.
12TW is around 4,000,000 square kilometres of wind turbines. About half the USA. At an average of 1MW per turbine output (NOT nameplate capacity) that would be around 12 million wind turbines.
Of course it would require MASSIVE storage to cope with the intermittency.
The fact remains that of low carbon is what you want, you have no choice but intermittent renewables plus pie-in-the-sky storage at astronomical costs in REAL terms – not magic money tree terms – , OR nuclear. Sh1tloads of luvverly nukes.
Which is why post the Late David Mackay, Britain is committed to at least some nuclear power. Fracking will help in the shorter term, but in he long term the nucleus promises thousands of years of fuel, and all you need is access to seawater in the limit.
Generating enough imprimatur energy with nukes is actually the easy part, its deploying it in areas other than mechanical energy and heating that is the problem.
Carbon based fuels are used as reducing agents to smelt metals, and make e.g. cement, as portable fuel sources for off grid power, and fotr other industrials feedstick purposes.
In the paper I cited earlier*, I made a reasonable case for synthetic carbon based fuels from nuclear energy water and CO2. Not ideal, but at a high cost, these might suffice.
The fact remains that fossil fuels will become uneconomic at some point in the future compared with nuclear power.
Ex of government interference making the problem worse by insisting on even more expensive renewables and storage, the natural market forces will tend to simply switch anything to nuclear electric that is in fact cheaper than fossil fuels.
All we need to ensure is that the West still understands nuclear technology, and does not end up as deeply indebted to china as it now is to Saudi Arabia, for oil, and all the political issues that has entailed…
Having so ensured, what will slowly happen is that nuclear power will replace existing plant, and more and more things that can be plugged into an ever expanding electricity grid, will be. I envisage a 50 year plus period in which this slowly takes place. I won’t live to see it.
This isn’t a crisis, but its a direction things will tend towards. In due course. In the meantime no hurry. Plenty of frack-able gas and mine-able coal, and nuclear made massively expensive due to over regulation…
* http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Beyond_Fossil_Fuels.pdf

Griff
Reply to  Leo Smith
August 14, 2017 4:32 am

And yet almost nobody is building nuclear power…
2 out of 4 under construction in the US suspended this month and another one in trouble… S Korea and France going to reduce future use of nukes..

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Griff
August 14, 2017 1:08 pm

Griff is right!
Almost nobody build power plants of any kind. It is a small industry. How many of you know so someone who works in the power industry? If you live in places like Richland, Washiongton; or Lynchberg, VA lots of you you have neighbors in the power industry. People in NYC not so much.
For the most part the same companies that build wind turbines build build nuke plants.
We build steam plants because our customers need electricity. We build wind turbines because politicians mandate it.
We do not build a lot of nuke because the produce a lot of power and run a long time. My first commercial nuke is the equivalent of 60,000 wind turbines when it comes to actually making electricity.
For more than 20 years, nuclear power has provided 20% of US power.
Wind power is like the hula hoop. It is a fad. Every other generation thinks if cool but they soon lose interest.
As a mechanical engineer I think the modern wind turbine is a marvel but not compared to a steam plant.