Summary: 2018 using Renewable Energy Foundation data
In 2018 UK Weather dependent renewables generated some 7.7 Gigawatts of power from an installed fleet of ~34 Gigawatts achieving a satisfactory overall capacity factor for Renewables of ~23%. The installed fleet cost ~84£billion in capital costs with average costs of ~11£billion/Gigawatt produced in capital costs and ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term. Because of the comparative capacity factors Offshore wind and Solar PV were roughly equivalent in capital costs at ~15£billion / Gigawatt produced and ~60£billion / Gigawatt produced over the long-term. The direct comparison in the UK situation with similar measures for traditional generation technologies, Gas-firing and Nuclear, can be seen to be substantially lower above.
This post gives indicative cost estimates of the current 2018 UK fleet of Weather Dependent Renewables, assuming no further growth, as both capital and probable long-term expenditures.
It shows clearly the likely cost differentials and overspend over effective traditional Electricity generation technologies, (Gas-firing and Nuclear) that Renewables incur and will incur to support political “Green Virtue Signalling” and the Government mandated “Anthropogenic Global Warming” hypothesis. These investments might contribute to the reduction of about a quarter of the UK’s 1.1% of 2018 Global CO2 emissions.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/
These calculations clearly contradict the popular assertion that Weather Dependent Renewables are now price competitive with conventional power generation, Gas-firing and even Nuclear power. They only compare the comparative costs of their power generating capability, leaving aside other unquantified ancillary costs of their use in operation.
This post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of UK Weather Dependent Renewables.
Introduction
This post gives indicative, (back of the envelope, expressed in £billion), estimates of the net capital and net 60 year long-term costs of Weather Dependent Renewables as compared to the use of Gas-firing for electricity generation in the UK. These net calculations should avoid the market distortions arising from the political interventions that have been made to support Renewables.
The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~84 £billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~350 £billion, were those existing Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term.
They give an idea of the present scale of the bare costs for “Green virtue signalling” in the UK. The equivalent costs using Gas-firing to provide a similar level of consistent power generation would be ~7 £billion in capital costs and a further ~31 £billion long-term respectively.
In the UK the three main forms of UK Weather Dependent Renewable Energy are Wind Power, (Onshore and Offshore), and on grid Photovoltaic Solar Power, about 75% of the Renewables total. The other “Renewable” energy inputs include traditional Hydro power ~8% and the remainder are other sources such as biomass, waste and landfill gas amounting to ~17%.
In 2018 the UK represented only 1.1% of the global CO2 emissions and power generation only amounted for less than one quarter of those CO2 emissions, transport and space heating accounting for the remainder.
So making costly and self-harming modifications UK electrical generation technologies can only have a marginal and minor impact on a very small proportion of current UK and global CO2 emissions. That impact is even less if one looks into the CO2 emission and energy requirements of Renewable technologies from their use of fossil essential for their manufacture to demolition.
Whenever announcements are made about Weather Dependent Renewable Energy installations, they are reported as the full Name Plate rating, (in other words the maximum potential power output the installation can produce under ideal Weather conditions), and also disingenuously as the number of homes that could be supplied at their full level of power output.
The question of Capacity / Load Factors is never fully explained, so such announcements are deliberately deceptive. Such promotional Renewable Energy announcements thus falsely assume that the wind blows all the time, (24/7), at productive speeds and that the sun shines overhead 24 hours/day and the seasons never change from summer. In fact the 2018 the combined capacity factor of UK Renewables amounted to ~1/5th, ~22% of their installed Nameplate rating.
Comparative Cost Model for Electricity Generation Technologies
The table above provides comparative costing for differing generation technologies. It is derived from the most recent, 2017, US EIA data in US$ on comparative costs of generation technologies.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf
The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as £billion / Gigawatt. These base data avoid the distorting effects of Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Renewable Energy. It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables. These EIA updates fully account for any recent cost reductions of Renewable technology costs, particularly those for Solar panels.
The table above assumes that the purchasing power of £1 is equivalent to US$1.20. The service life allocated for Renewables used above may well be generous, particularly for Offshore Wind and Solar Photovoltaics. The production capability of all Renewable technologies have been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life.
Note that in addition that these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables. The results above only account for the cost comparisons for the actual electrical power generated accounting for the capacity of each generating technology.
The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from:
- unreliability in terms of both intermittency and variability
- poor timing of generation, unlikely to be coordinated with demand
- long transmission lines with costly power losses and increased maintenance
- additional infrastructure necessary for access
- the costs of largely redundant back up generation only used on occasions but wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless
- unsynchronised generation with lack of inherent inertia.
- inability to recover from a “black start”, when essential after failure.
These net cost calculations should avoid the distortions arising from the political interventions in support of Renewables.
In addition these cost analyses do not account for:
- The “Carbon footprint” of Renewable technologies, they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture, installation and eventual demolition. When viewed in the round, all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels.
- The Energy Return on Energy Invested, Renewables may well not produce as much Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation. They certainly do not provide the regular excess power sufficient to support the multiple needs of a developed society.
The Renewable Energy Foundation time series data for the UK 2002 – 2018
The Renewable Energy Foundation reports on Weather Dependent Renewables and Green energy in the UK.
https://ref.org.uk/energy-data
It has provided comprehensive time series data on Renewable Installations in the UK since 2002. This includes the Nameplate rating of installations and the annual Gigawatt Hour electrical output over the year for each generation technology. This post uses those data and provides graphic representations of the Renewable Energy Foundation information, with time series presentations showing the progress of UK Weather Dependent Renewables.
According the Renewable Energy Foundation data, 2018 was a reasonable year for UK Weather Dependent Renewables productivity.
Productivity expressed as a percentage capacity factor, (actual power produced / nameplate value), is crucial to evaluating the true comparative value of power produced. The progress since 2002 of installation of Weather Dependent Renewables in the UK is shown below.
The capacity figures that have been achieved in the UK are shown below.
Overall, on average the UK Renewables performance has exceeded 22%, providing a better than average performance for the year 2018. Onshore Wind power, now substantially curtailed in the UK, has achieved capacities around ~25%. Offshore Wind power has been more variable but achieved a capacity figure of ~35% in 2018.
But of course the “trip” of an Offshore wind farm on a breezy summer afternoon contributed to the major UK power outage of 9/8/2019. An outage like that will be all the more severe and probably longer lasting one still foggy winter evening soon. Weather Dependent Renewables can not provide inherent inertia in the grid to overcome short term sudden variability and to enable a “Black Start”, if needed.
The productivity of Solar Power in the UK is consistently at the ~10% capacity level.
The two graphs below show the progress of Renewable installations in the UK since 2002 noting:
- the gross over commitment to Solar PV Power 2013-2016, (yielding only ~10% capacity)
- the remarkable cut back in Renewable installations that occurred in 2018
- the very large future cost commitments made in 2010 and 2017 particularly for Offshore Wind power. In 2017 this alone amounted a future cost of some 50£billion.
Comparative Generation Costings
The table below gives a capital valuation of the current 2018 UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~84£billion with probable ongoing costs of ~325£billion. This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power and more than 11 times the cost of using Gas-firing for equivalent generation.
The excess capital expenditures of Renewables range from ~41£billion to ~77£billion. The long-term excess expenditures range from 230£billion to 300£billion depending on the substituted technology.
These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the UK population both via direct taxation and added to utility bills by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on the UK electricity generation. That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorer in UK society.
The following three tables show how differing existing Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs. Onshore Wind power is the most competitive achieving parity with Nuclear power in capital cost but being about twice as expensive long -term. Onshore wind power is only about 6 times more costly than Gas-firing.
Offshore wind power and Solar PV power are similarly cost-ineffective being 2.5 – 5 times more costly than Nuclear but about 16 times more costly than Gas-firing. They together are responsible for more than 75% of the excess costs of the UK Renewables fleet even though they are responsible for only ~55% of the Renewable power output produced. Together wastage in the capital cost from Offshore wind and Solar power amounts to some 60£billion with a long-term anticipated cost of ~230billion.
Conclusion
Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power. At the same time Weather Dependent Renewables are both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable.
Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Gas-firing or Nuclear power. ~2-5 times for Nuclear power and in the UK ~16 times more expensive than Gas-firing.
The late Prof David Mackay (former chef scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of powering a developed country such as the UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was:
“an appalling delusion”.
At the time he also said:
“There’s so much delusion, it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics.”
This costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay’s back of the envelope calculations. in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables, (Offshore wind and Solar Power), are approximately ~16 times more expensive in both capital and lifetime costs when compared to the use of Gas-fired Generation technologies. At the same time Onshore wind power is only ~6 times more costly than Gas-firing.
The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet amount to some 77£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 300£billion.
If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “saving the planet” from the output of the UK’s small amount, (~25% of 1.1%, much less than the annual growth in China and the Developing world), of Man-made CO2 produced by the UK for electricity generation, their actual costs, in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.
It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government mandated excess costs to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps saving undetectable temperature increases a 100 years in the future, especially in a context where the developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it’s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.
Reducing the UK’s minor part of Man-made CO2 emissions as a means to control a “warming” climate seems even less relevant as the long-term temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, towards the coming end of the current Holocene interglacial epoch.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/there-is-no-man-made-climate-emergency/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Vehicles use internal combustion engines which are inefficient and polluting, and their energy source is also a big polluter.
Switching to electric vehicles improves the overall efficiency but unless the energy used comes from renewables you’re shifting some of the co2 to the power stations.
Wrong, a common turbo diesel achieves a thermal efficiency of 40% or even more (such as when waste heat is used for cabin heating) while end to end EVs only achieve about 14% thermal efficiency (assuming coal as the fuel) and emit about 2.5 times the amount of CO2 watt for watt. EV fuel efficiency is less than 5% from renewables (given how inefficient renewable are at extracting energy from the fuel source (sun or wind) and their low capacity factors)
It is NOT correct to say EVs are more fuel efficient.
Even taken alone EV efficiency can only reach 70-80% (charging, storage, conversion , and drive chain losses) when the batteries are new, and since batteries perform very poorly in cold and cabin heating needs to use primary rather than waste energy, efficiency can be very low for an old battery pack used in a sub zero temperature environment. Fuel efficiency of the coal fuel powering EVs can be as low as 5% (1% for renewable sources) for worst case operating conditions. Overall energy use efficiency in EVs declines from 14% in cold due to poor battery chemistry (energy used to warm the battery pack) while the fuel efficiency of diesel increases (up to 80%) due to the effective use of waste heat from the combustion process in cold climates.
Why do you mention coal? It’s virtually disappeared from the mix of power sources for the UK grid. By even mentioning coal you’re pretty much discrediting yourself.
Saying EVs are not more efficient is the kind of lie that would make the Koch brother proud.
You’re massively exaggerating the efficiency of a diesel in a vehicle… 40% might be achievable in theory but it’s held that diesel vehicles typically operate at 30%. Moreover, that 30% is once the engine is at operating temperature, and, the vehicle is moving. A stationary fossil-fuelled vehicle has zero efficiency other than as a machine for producing waste heat, CO2 and NOx pollution.
Well to wheel for a fossil fuelled car is piss poor.
Natural gas can achieve up to 60% ish. Losses in the grid are maybe 7%. An EV can achieve 75% wall plug to wheel efficiency. Overall then far better than an ICE. There’s a high correlation of EV owners to PV owners, thus many EVs are charged off, effectively, free solar.
Paul, why is ‘Biomass’ lumped in with ‘renewable energy’ when it clearly produces CO2?
What recycling plants are in place in the UK for EV batteries and end of life wind and solar infrastructure, and what is the source of power to run these plants?
Have you done any research on the total carbon footprint of ‘materials’ sourcing (mining), ‘processing’, ‘manufacturing’, and all the transport involved in between, including shipping of EV batteries and wind turbines and solar panels globally?
Fossil fuels are used every step of the way. CO2 is produced on a massive scale to produce ‘clean’ energy, and to recycle it. And that’s not taking into account the ecological and social damage done in places like China, Africa, South America and others.
You can’t go sanctimonious about the UK not using coal these days because the fact is most other countries do. And just because the ‘clean’ energy infrastructure is made somewhere else it doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for the CO2 created when you use it.
coal is in decline overall, even in the US despite Trump’s rhetoric, it’s mainly China that increased coal fired generation (but that’s slowing).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-coal-power-set-for-record-fall-in-2019
I agree that a lot of biomass is bogus
Once a wind generator is installed or a PV panel fitted, and the wires connected to the grid, the marginal costs of the power generated is free. That’s not the case with fossil fuels (which are becoming ever harder to exploit), every kWh delivered incurs costs and pollution as part of the extraction and delivery.
@megs did you notice that the Saudis are investing in solar in order to power their refineries (a typical refinery takes 200MW of electricity). They’re not doing it because they’re liberal tree-hugging greenies, they’re doing it because it makes economic sense
Paul, it makes sense in that there is plenty of sunshine in Saudi Arabia. Australia has done something similar at Adani mine in Queensland, plenty of sunshine there too.
But I stand by all that I’ve said in previous posts, the ecological damage has still been done in China and other countries. The CO2 has still been pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate directly due to the production of wind, solar and production of EV batteries. Can you see the hypocrisy in that?
@megs if you calculate the CO2 and environment damage for, say, 1GWh of energy in two scenarios:
1. from turbine to wheels – if that energy was generated by a wind turbine, carried by wires to a house, charged an EV, then driving the wheels of that EV.
2. wells to wheels: the full energy cycle, initial oil exploration, making the oil well itself, transporting the well to the well head, powering the oil extraction machinery, pumping the crude, refining that, transporting it to the petrol station, and then the energy delivered after thermal losses of a fossil fuelled car of 70%, the actual energy fed to the wheels.
How does manufacturing an oil well plus the ancillary pipes and pumps compare to a wind turbine, to give the same peak output?
@megs
you wrote “The CO2 has still been pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate directly due to the production of wind, solar and production of EV batteries”
but at least once those things have been manufactured, the marginal cost of energy production falls to zero, the pollution is a sunk thing, at least for the lifetime of those items.
with fossil fuels, you’re still ravaging the planet to find more.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/deepwater-horizon-site-wasteland-populated-sickly-crabs-180973181/
so, what do you propose? How about we continue until we render about two thirds of the the planet unfit for human habitation; the resulting wars, famine and disease from mass migration will reduce the population by 60% or more, thus allowing the planet to recover?
Paul, the whole ‘clean energy’ scam is simply creating ‘additional’ and unnecessary ravaging of the globe. The included link gives you an insight into the damage done.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs
Once you are in the article, click on the embedded link that shows a picture from space of the mining methods used in China for mining rare earth materials.
An ode to wind power
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: a rusting column, overgrown
Stands on a hillside. With it, close at hand
Half sunk, a long and curving shaft lies prone
Though wrinkled and corroded by the rain
Its sculptor’s purpose still is plain to see
A giant windmill, spinning to entrain
From tortured gearing, electricity
And on the pedestal these words appear
“My name is Andrew Cuomo, King of kings
Look on my works, deniers, and despair”
Nothing beside remains, round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, the meadows fair
And forests breathing life stretch far away
“The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~84 £billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~350 £billion, were those existing Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term.”
“The service life allocated for Renewables used above
may well be generous, particularly for Offshore Wind and Solar Photovoltaics.”
Indeed.
60 years service life when:
“Solar cell efficiency – Wikipedia
Lower-quality cells have a more rapid drop in voltage with increasing current and could produce only 1/2 VOC at 1/2 ISC. The usable power output could thus drop from 70% of the VOC x ISC product to 50% or even as little as 25%. … The maximum power point of a photovoltaic varies with incident illumination.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=efficiency+drop+Photovoltaics&oq=efficiency+drop+Photovoltaics+&aqs=chrome.
______________________________________________________
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNTdxlqdyHbl2UA1-nqUDH8m-kEv6g%3A1575524193499&ei=YZfoXaKGHsaImwXSx5GADQ&q=efficiency+drop+wind+electricity&oq=efficiency+drop+wind+electricity&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Wind Energy: Profits gone with the wind
29 Nov 2017
· The good news for German consumers: renewable-energy surcharges are dropping. The bad news for …
https://www.handelsblatt.com/wind-energy-profits-gone-with-the-wind/23573222.html
In addition these cost analyses do not account for:
· The “Carbon footprint” of Renewable technologies, they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture, installation and eventual demolition. When viewed in the round, all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels.”
Indeed. On the risk of repeating myself: Windelec blades in-recyclable:
https://www.google.com/search?q=windelec+blades+construction+wood+recycling&oq=windelec+&aqs=chrome.
Are solar cells recyclable?
“Right away, it’s clear that many of the core components of solar panels can be recycled on their own. Metal, glass, and wiring can all be recycled and reused:
Silicon cells, the component that is most essential to producing electricity, are a slightly different story.”
Aug 30, 2018
https://news.energysage.com › recyc…
Solar Panel Recycling in 2019: How it Works | EnergySage
https://www.google.com/search?q=Photovoltaics+in-recyclable&oq=Photovoltaics+in-recyclable+&aqs=chrome.
Johann I clicked on your windelec recycling site. You know that wind turbines aren’t made from timber don’t you, because that site talked about recycling timber.
As for recycling solar panels. The site you sent us to is simply promoting it’s product and stating that, yes it is possible to recycle solar panels.
There are not too many people here who would argue about whether or not you can recycle solar panels. We also know it’s possible. But is it financially viable?
Did you know that there are are only a relatively small number of recycling plants around the world. There are none currently operating in Australia, I believe there is still only a small number in the US. They are mandated in parts of Europe and you pay for this process up front in the cost of your solar installation. There are large numbers of solar panels currently going into landfill. Different places, even within the same country are responsible about the disposal of these panels, after all they are at the very least E-waste, but most are not responsible in their disposal.
The fact the it’s deemed unsafe (by some at least) to allow damaged panels to go to landfill due to the danger of toxic materials leaching into the soil, kind of makes you wonder what happens when a hailstorm destroys hundreds of hectares of them? Doesn’t it?
Did you know that the processing of the solar panels is different for different types of panels? Some of the panels require acid baths, it’s a toxic process. The materials they call rare earth materials are often not recovered, a small proportion percentage wise but massive amounts when you’re talking millions of panels. At this point, I believe the profits in recycling are small to non existent. It’s still cheaper (especially in China) to use new materials.
Speaking of China. Most of the mining, processing and manufacturing for renewable energy happens in China. The ecological damage done there is appalling. If you haven’t seen it the toxic waste created in the name of ‘clean energy’ is horrendous.
When people talk about the carbon footprint of renewable energy they forget to look at the full cycle. Apart from what I mentioned in the last paragraph, there are large amounts of ‘fossil fuels’ used during all the processes. The trucks at the mines are huge, they transfer materials for ‘processing’ then on for ‘manufacturing’ and finally on to ports to be ‘shipped’ around the world. Have you seen the trucks that deliver wind turbines to be installed? They run on fossil fuels. All forms of transport for renewable energy run on fossil fuels, every step of the way! The manufacturing companies in China run on fossil fuels!
This is why it’s impossible for renewable energy to counter it’s carbon footprint. This is why it will never be cheaper than other forms of power. All this and the output is rubbish and the land area wasted for it’s use is nothing short of criminal!
If you can read this and tell me something positive about solar and wind power then please do.
PV panel recycling is a relatively new industry, mainly because PV panels haven’t been around all that long, and even when 30+ years old can still be useful even if they only produce 80% of their originally rated power, however, plants are being built for that. Likewise Li batteries from EVs (which get a second life for low performance installations).
If you consider a 12 panel domestic installation that’s in service for say 30 years, compare that with the household waste that would be produced (from food packaging to phones, tvs, computers, etc) and isn’t recycled, I think it’s fair to say that society has other big problems to worry about.
Paul, thank you for acknowledging the future problems of recycling renewables. Given that you acknowledge that solar panels are a new technology I don’t see how you can say that they will last 30 years. That assumes they are of the highest quality and they certainly aren’t guaranteed for anything like 30 years. People will install what they can afford, or are ignorant that there is a difference.
Here in Australia one in five systems failed for many years, the suppliers won’t take them back and most of them ended up in landfill. We put in 22 panels on our shed before we did all this research, fortunately, at least they are quality panels. We will never add a battery and we hope we don’t have a hailstorm. We live in the country and the roof with the panels on feeds into our 130,000 litre water tank. You wonder why we worry!
What is going to happen to hundreds of hectares of them? Will the soil and waterways be safe in the event of a hailstorm or fire?
yes, there has been a bit of a scandal about sub standard panels being dumped in Australia with lots of premature failures.
most panels are warranted to last 25 years with, say, 10% loss of performance. of course, trying to claim on that warranty is another matter.
if the panels are shattered, then I think its unlikely that toxic chemicals will leak out – it’s all bound up in the solicon, and the dopants in the silicon are a tiny fraction of the bulk anyway.
Paul, damaged panels can and do leach out cadmium and lead if damaged. I have written out a paragraph from a Solar Panel company about recycling panels, it’s a promotional article, they’re not doing it yet.
The company is ‘Secure Futures’ and the article is titled “What you need to know about recycling Solar Panels.” The paragraph as follows,
“Recent research has shown that panels that are simply tossed into a landfill (i.e., simply smashed up) can leach elements like cadmium and lead into the earth and groundwater. Recycling panels is a much better option, not only for avoiding the introduction of contaminants into the environment, but also generally speaking, for the re-use of materials in line with the age-old Reduce-Reuse-recycle mantra.”
They are a large organisation in America.
There is another article that you would find interesting, just Google ‘Solar Power World’
“It’s time to plan for solar panel recycling in the United States”.
The second article is much more detailed.
These are examples of why I’m concerned about thousands of storm damaged panels covering hundreds of hectares of land and over waterways and arable land. This is why I’m concerned about damaged rooftop panels leaching toxic waste into into water tanks, water that we use for drinking. Or even the runoff that goes out to sea.
If you understand the full story you know that nothing about renewables has been thought through. That’s because none of it is really about Climate Change, this is all simply to devide
us. But what makes me really angry is that they are causing so much damage, risking lives and wasting so much money all for nothing, in regards to the environment anyway. Who knows what the future holds for us.
@megs, I shall go and read that, thanks.
@megs if you calculate the CO2 and environment damage for, say, 1GWh of energy in two scenarios:
1. from turbine to wheels – if that energy was generated by a wind turbine, carried by wires to a house, charged an EV, then driving the wheels of that EV.
2. wells to wheels: the full energy cycle, initial oil exploration, making the oil well itself, transporting the well to the well head, powering the oil extraction machinery, pumping the crude, refining that, transporting it to the petrol station, and then the energy delivered after thermal losses of a fossil fuelled car of 70%, the actual energy fed to the wheels.
How does manufacturing an oil well plus the ancillary pipes and pumps compare to a wind turbine, to give the same peak output?
Conclusion
Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power –> Weather-dependent renewable energy depends on the use of essentially rare and very variable energy sources.
but, Johann Wundersamer, fossil fuels depend on a non-renewable source of energy, which happen to be environmentally destructive and produce stuff which is toxic to humans, and is also getting harder to find (oil wells go much deeper now than even ten years ago)
so what do you suggest? hope that fossil fuels never run out?
Paul we have enough fossil fuels to last hundreds of years. The materials used in making weather driven ‘clean energy’ is not finite either, and it has to be built on a massive scale and often.
Wind and solar is not a good substitute if you are looking to reduce CO2, the ‘making and eventual recycling’ of it creates more of it than it will offset. It is simply additional and unnecessary ‘environmental destruction’.
Hopefully they’ll come up with something else, something properly thought through, some time in the near future. Meantime, CO2 is not going to be the end of us all.
@megs
put aside the CO2 for the moment, are you going to respond to the issue of toxicity from burning fossil fuels? so far people have argued vaguely against my points about diesel and failed to actually come up with any actual citations to back up their arguments.
did you answer the question about the true cost of bringing a new oil well online, in comparison to a wind turbine? Also, tack onto that research, the cost of decommissioning said oil well, vs the turbine, what can be recycled, what can’t, and how much that costs.
@niceguy here in the UK the shift from petrol to diesel was pretty quick. I don’t recall suggesting we scrap every fossil fuelled vehicle, so I don’t know why you came up with that FUD.
Paul, CO2 is the ‘whole’ issue! The whole Climate Change scam says that rising anthropogenic CO2 thing is what we need to reduce, or to the extreme eliminate, to save the world! Wind turbines and solar, by the way they come about do not even reduce CO2 emissions, let alone eliminate them.
As far as the toxicity of fossil fuels versus wind and solar, you know my stance on that. Did you not look at the link I sent you? The manufacture and installation of wind and solar is not a one off thing, it’s ongoing, the CO2 is still being added to, the ecological damage is still being done.
If wind and solar production stopped today, there would be a lot less mining, a lot less CO2, reduced ecological damage and more available land!
In regards to the differences in cost etc between oil infrastructure and turbines, if you think that turbines come out in front then you do the research, I have no interest in the answer. Nothing can justify building turbines.
When you do the research, don’t forget that you’re not talking about one turbine, how many?, and they have a relatively short life. You’ll need to research that too, the talked up version and the reality. Don’t forget that the blades are made from rare earth materials so they’re tricky to recycle. And of course you can’t run an EV without a battery, so that cost needs to be included too. Something that is of the utmost importance when conducting this research is how much extra land will be taken up by the turbines, and what that is likely to cost? Did you know that nearby residents have no say as to where turbines or solar plants go? They can put them up in a thousand hectares right next door to you and there is nothing you can do about it. How do you factor in that cost?
EV batteries are huge, and expensive, they are also something to consider in the event of an accident. Towing companies don’t know how to deal with them, damaged batteries can be dangerous.
When you are comparing oil verses turbines the the logic suggests that you are promoting the use of EV’s. This is a car for the wealthy, when it comes time to replace the battery it will be a significant cost, and people who don’t have a lot of money tend to keep their cars longer. What about the people who can’t afford an EV? Are they going to be punished with higher prices at the petrol pump?
I don’t think it’s worth going any further with this thread Peter, we are at the end of the post and it’s likely that very few people are reading it. If I am going to spend so much time making comments then I would prefer that it was a broader conversation.
Truth be known, if I had a choice about moving away from oil and coal it would be to nuclear, that’s not an option in this country at the moment. Wind and solar is raping vast areas of land, leaving behind an ecological nightmare, and all for nothing.
We suggest to preserve the machines that have been built using fossil fuels:
– used cars that don’t fit the latest expectations of efficiency and low pollution, but that still work OK
– existing truck drive trains that can be refurbished
– existing nuclear reactors that may not fit your idea of hyper secure, quadruple redundancy emergency electric power but that are still super safe
Stop pushing your throw away economic model that forces people and states to destroy their costly machines (small cars or big power plants).
@megs
put aside the CO2 for the moment, are you going to respond to the issue of toxicity from burning fossil fuels? so far people have argued vaguely against my points about diesel and failed to actually come up with any actual citations to back up their arguments.
did you answer the question about the true cost of bringing a new oil well online, in comparison to a wind turbine? Also, tack onto that research, the cost of decommissioning said oil well, vs the turbine, what can be recycled, what can’t, and how much that costs.
@niceguy here in the UK the shift from petrol to diesel was pretty quick. I don’t recall suggesting we scrap every fossil fuelled vehicle, so I don’t know why you came up with that FUD.
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD