green perpetual motion machine--patent pending

They Can’t Make Green Energy Using Only Green Energy

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

Not being a dope, you likely realized a long time ago that it was going to take a lot of energy to manufacture the components of the future green energy utopia. Wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, and so forth — there is lots of steel, other metals, and silica involved that all need to be melted at high temperatures to get formed into the devices. How are they going to achieve that at reasonable cost using just the wind and sun as energy sources?

Up to now, the main strategy has been to buy most of the devices from China, where they are made largely using energy from coal. Out of sight, out of mind. But both Europe and the U.S. have made an effort to get at least somewhat into the game of making these things. Europe finds itself leading the acceleration into the green energy wall, with the intentional suppression of fossil fuel production and now the substantial cutoff of Russian gas supplies causing sharp spikes in the prices of both gas and electricity.

Without any low-priced fossil fuels to use for making the green energy devices, what is the current situation in Europe? A source called renews.biz has a roundup on October 4. Some excerpts:

Research from Rystad Energy reveals that 35GW of solar manufacturing and more than 2000 gigawatt hours of battery cell manufacturing capacity in the EU could be mothballed unless power prices return to normal. The energy intensive nature of these manufacturing processes is leading some operators to temporarily close or abandon production facilities as the cost of doing business escalates.

Who might have guessed that making solar panels and big grid-scale batteries might be “energy intensive”? There’s this specifically as to battery manufacturing:

Battery cell manufacturing – crucial in the EV and battery storage supply chain – is even more energy intensive than solar manufacturing, and Europe is a major global player. The EU currently boasts about 550GWh of capacity, representing 27% of global operational capacity. Announced projects under development are set to boost that total significantly, increasing capacity to 2.7 terawatt-hours, positioning the EU as a global leader. However, those are now at risk and the car manufacturing and battery storage sectors could struggle to source Europe-made batteries as a result, stated Rystad. “High power prices not only pose a significant threat to European decarbonisation efforts but could also result in increased reliance on overseas manufacturing, something governments are eager to avoid.

Looks like it takes lots of carbon to achieve “decarbonization.”

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian on September 12, they have begun to fret that high electricity prices are threatening the whole idea of electric cars. The headline is “Soaring energy costs could threaten future of electric cars, experts warn.” Excerpt:

Electric car owners, whether charging their cars at home or through contracts with charging operators, have seen price rises of 10% or more. Further price rises are expected, owing to the fact that the price of electricity is linked to that of gas, which has become ever scarcer since Russia turned off its gas supplies to Germany almost two weeks ago. Allego, one of Germany’s largest charging station operators, raised its prices at the start of this month from 43 cents a kilowatt hour to 47 cents. Express charging, via a continuous current, has risen from 65 to 70 cents a kilowatt hour while the fastest, so-called ultra-fast charging, has gone up from 68 cents to 75 cents a kilowatt hour.

According to the automobile economist Stefan Bratzel, the development is an immediate threat to the industry. . . . “If electric cars become more expensive to use, the surge in electric mobility is in danger of collapsing. . . .

And then we have the story of Britishvolt, the UK’s first “gigafactory,” supposedly on the road to making big batteries to backup the renewable energy future. They even have substantial backing from the UK government, but apparently it’s not enough. With European energy prices spiking, investors are heading for the exits; and the Times (London) reports on October 15 that now they are “running out of money” and need an infusion of some 200 million pounds by year end to avoid going bust:

The company building Britain’s first battery “gigafactory” is in emergency talks with investors including a major carmaker amid fears it could run out of money before the end of the year. Britishvolt, a government-backed developer of battery cell technologies, is reportedly holding talks with seven potential investors after recent market turmoil led to prospective backers pulling out of its latest funding round.

To read the full article click here.

5 31 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yooper
October 18, 2022 6:19 am

HaHaHaHa!

observa
October 18, 2022 6:27 am

They Can’t Make Green Energy Using Only Green Energy
Well the Greenies might have to pick their times-
Prepare for blackouts on cold weekday evenings, public warned (msn.com)

AGW is Not Science
October 18, 2022 6:32 am

That has always been, and will always be, the case. Low density energy intermittently and unpredictability and unreliability produced at the whim of the weather can’t even provide the energy to manufacture its own replacements, much less provide the energy to keep the lights on or provide transport.

To use one of the favorite green delusion buzzwords, IT’S NOT “SUSTAINABLE!”

How ironic!

HotScot
October 18, 2022 6:39 am

Tragically, the whole world needs to go to sh*t before people realise that what’s been said on WUWT and other climate sceptic blogs has been right all along.

william Johnston
Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2022 6:58 am

Unfortunately, it will be the ones pushing this green crap that will be the last to suffer.

Ron Long
Reply to  william Johnston
October 18, 2022 7:19 am

That’s right, and the idiots they talked into voting for the CAGW/Green Looney administrations will suffer the first and most. Cruel but just.

Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2022 5:41 pm

when you post comments using a deseil generator to power your PC i’ll take you seriously

HotScot
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 3:15 am

Petrol actually. It sits in my garden awaiting the inevitable power cuts facing the UK this winter because renewables are utterly incapable of doing their job.

Other than that, my PC is largely powered by fossil fuels burned in a functional power station.

You, on the other hand, are up to your neck in the climate scam yet continue to use a PC, doubtless a car, home heating/cooling cooking facilities and synthetic clothing all reliant on fossil fuels.

Begone fool, back to your cave where you can catch and skin animals with a flint knife for their pelts.

What makes you think I give a monkeys whether you take me seriously or not?

“Chief scientist” my aunt fanny. You are no more a scientist than I am, but I’m not a hypocrite.

Last edited 3 months ago by HotScot
mal
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 9:41 pm

I know how to trap and hunt game, do you. Do you have any idea what in the wild what you an eat. For that matter have you every shovel manure, used a oil lamp, burn wood to keep warm in the winter. Do you know how to insulate a house, than cover it over. can you put an operating system on a computer(I know how to install them on over a dozen system not counting windows) How about configure a working network across multiple states, what about wiring a house. Replacing the plumbing in a house from piping to sewer.

Can you survive in the north would at 20 below, how about the desert at 105. Let alone with only a compass travel across a roadless area in the dark. Do you know what is like to be dragged by a calf or a lamb through the manure. Side a house, replace a window. If you done half of this I will be surprise. Get back to me when you have live in the green utopia you think going to happen. I know what it like to be poor and have limiter resources and what one must do to live, do you.

W.Browning
Reply to  HotScot
October 19, 2022 1:03 pm

Yep, most people don’t realize how many things are made from oil. Plastics, medicines, and more things than I even know about. You couldn’t make a solar panel, computer, cell phone, shoes, etc. without a contribution from oil or gas, not even including turning the generators to make the power to heat the kilns, etc. Hydrocarbons make life as we know it possible.

observa
October 18, 2022 6:53 am

Making silicon solar panels is very energy intensive-
How Are Solar Panels Made? | Solar Market
I seem to recall requiring a temperature of 1432 degrees centigrade for that silicon and why they’re knocking it out with coal in China. Candlepower won’t cut it.

Rick C
Reply to  observa
October 18, 2022 8:47 am

Also, you cannot make flat glass – required to make solar panels – economically without completely reliable intensive heating. A float glass plant runs continuously 24/7/365 for years at a time. If the glass reservoir ever solidifies, it cannot be remelted without damaging the furnace due to thermal expansion. Maintaining a large vat of molten glass at 1700+ C requires massive amounts of natural gas. European glass plants are going away soon.

Ian Johnson
Reply to  Rick C
October 18, 2022 9:20 am

A similar temperature is needed for making the fiberglass for whirligig blades. Not to mention the resins from oil.

R Stevenson
Reply to  Rick C
October 19, 2022 2:44 am

I visited Pilkington’s float glass plant in St Helens Lancashire to see the company’s feedstock mixers. That was 40 years ago and the abiding memory of the well run plant was the natural gas fired train of molten glass furnaces over flowing one to the other. NG requirements seemed to be enormous

JohnC
Reply to  observa
October 19, 2022 1:52 am

Although the article referenced suggests beach sand, I was under the impression that desert sand was preferable, but this is based on a university course I did almost 40 years ago, which was about monocrystalline silicon wafer manufacture and the temperatures needed to create the silicon crystal and for doping it. I remember my thoughts then were that not only did Saudi Arabia have oil but they had the sand for IC manufacture.

mal
Reply to  JohnC
October 19, 2022 9:43 pm

So does Arizona.

Megs
Reply to  observa
October 20, 2022 1:11 am

Great link! Good to get a feel for all the processes.

The link below shows how silicon ingots are manufactured in China. Clean and green solar panels they tell us?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels

mst
October 18, 2022 7:07 am

Back around 1980 I was in a public discussion during an “Energy Crisis” engendered conference. There was a fellow several seats down that was advocating for everybody just getting off the grid, burning wood, and siting in their passive solar houses (this was Colorado). I’m afraid I shut him down a little harshly, something like: 1) given a few billion people burning wood, how long do you think the forests will last? 2) Where do you think the glass for your passive solar homes comes from? And wood stoves. And nails. And just what do you plan to eat? And where is that coming from?

I think he may still feel bruised.

Last edited 3 months ago by mst
Reply to  mst
October 18, 2022 4:23 pm

I think he may still feel bruised”

Likely, not bruised enough.

Josh
October 18, 2022 7:07 am

Does anyone know where to find a detailed breakdown of the energy costs involved in manufacturing wind turbines or solar panels? The, ‘it takes more energy to make than they produce’ ‘no, that’s not true’ debate could do with some more detailed stats. Thanks

menace
Reply to  Josh
October 18, 2022 7:44 am

https://solvoltaics.com/energy-make-solar-panel/

Though the answer is highly variable, in general terms, it takes about 200kWh to create a 100-watt solar panel.

So it has to run about 2,000 hrs (~1 year) just to make up for the energy used to create it. This does not include other capital costs in manufacturing which I guess might take another couple or three of years to recoup. I don’t know if the above figure also includes the energy used to create the infrastructure (factories, etc.) and mining. My guess is no as they say “We are talking about the energy needed to make the panel physically.”

Mantis
Reply to  menace
October 18, 2022 8:45 am

That seems like an extremely low estimate. I’ve seen estimates that basically it takes 7 years just to produce the energy it took to build it, which to me seems much more likely, as given the need for constant subsidies, it’s clear solar only amortizes energy, and doesn’t produce it.

But your source link doesn’t go into how they calculate their figure, they just throw that number out there. Given that the source looks extremely biased pro-solar, I suspect it is a highly wishful thinking estimate that includes only final manufacture, and excludes things like transportation of materials and final product, energy to mine and refine materials, energy to install and maintain panels, and energy used to build the plant in the first place. In short, certainly not a total lifecycle estimate of energy required.

AndyHce
Reply to  menace
October 18, 2022 11:52 am

That would be at 100% capacity factor. In many climates 100% can never be achieved. Isn’t ‘t the world wide solar PV average about 16%?

Willem Post
Reply to  menace
October 18, 2022 1:59 pm

In New England the capacity factor is 0.145
one kW of panels would produce 1250 kWh/y

one kW of panels, say 3 panels at 333 W each, would take 3 x 666 kWh/3 panels, or 2000 kWh/kW of panels

so it would take 2000/1250 = 1.6 years to recover the panel-making energy.

but the system consists of many other items, which also require energy to make

Last edited 3 months ago by wilpost
mal
Reply to  Willem Post
October 19, 2022 9:48 pm

Solar won’t pay for itself in Arizona , how in the hell is going to work in New England. It does not pencil here in Arizona and that at retail what on God green earth are you buying into. Now will it look good in the first five years yeas but after ten it going to be a huge loser, even when you sell “your power” at retail back to the power company.

Reply to  menace
October 18, 2022 5:17 pm

1) That website you link too? They are selling solar.
2) They are using average generic numbers.
3) They are falsely using numbers generated on very sunny areas that oddly do not have cloudy days.

A) Solar and it’s faux renewable energy generator friend wind produce highly intermittent, inconsistent, poor quality electricity.
a) every change in atmospheric transparency, every cloud passing by, arrays of solar cells provides constantly changing highly variable voltage, amperage, frequency.

B) Industrial users, including glass manufacturers, install “Line Conditioners”, on their incoming electric lines for every machine.
a) Line conditioners depend upon supplies of high quality, consistent electricity so they can send to the machine/servers/melts extremely consistent energy.
b) Modern industry can supply consistent high quality products because their high quality energy supply.
c) Amperage must be controlled within a tight window.
d) Voltage must be controlled within a tight window.
c) Frequency must be controlled within a tight window.

These are the critical factors that renewable energy must supply to modern industries.
Every business that claimed to install solar/wind for their factories, server farms, furnaces has failed to achieve those goals. Instead, they relegate their solar arrays or wind turbine electricity for facility lighting with fossil fuel/nuclear/hydro backup or they dump their electricity into the electric grid and let other people suffer.

“One hundred watts x 10 hours of direct sunlight per day = 1000 watts of energy per day. 1000 × 365 days per year = 365kWh of energy per year.”

Ten hours a day?
1,000 watts a day for 365.25 days a year?

There is no such thing as averages when it comes to widely disparate aggregation and accretions of renewable energy!

Then there is the major problem of “Nameplate” and “Actual” electric production. Both wind and solar produce 1/4rd to 1/3rd Actual electricity versus Nameplate.

Politicians, activists, eco-loons all imagine that brown-outs, rolling black-outs, power outages, variable quality, variable power renewable energy are just minor inconveniences and they should suck it up.

Industries, businesses, etc. suffer catastrophic failures when the power cuts or produce poor quality parts when line quality is bad.

What is the real comparison when one electricity supplier is unable to supply quality, consistency or absolutely reliable electricity?

Now about the person “menace”… Are you using any synthetics? Nylon, rayon, kevlar, plastics, plastic lined containers for liquids, glass, rare Earths, metals, laminated or compressed woods, or any one of thousands of products that depend upon fossil fuels?

If any one of them is a yes answer, then pushing solar silliness makes for hypocrisy.

Last edited 3 months ago by ATheoK
menace
Reply to  ATheoK
October 20, 2022 8:49 am

I’m no advocate for renewables. I was critical of the website’s claim which I suspect is simply dividing the electrical usage of the factory by the number of 100w panels manufactured and ignoring energy used to mine the materials and build the factories and build all the machines needed to do the mining and all the conveyances to do the transportation from China to the installers, etc.

I agree with many of your points but I was simply attempting to provide info relevant to the question that was asked. I don’t know why you are jumping on my case for that.

Last edited 3 months ago by menace
mal
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 9:51 pm

I will put that into the 75% if pure BS published.

ltexpat
Reply to  Josh
October 18, 2022 8:19 am

Omitted from ALL cost comparisons I have seen is the fact that the design and practical service lives of wind and solat are a fraction of conventional generation technologies.
A coal, oil or gas fired power generation plant will run for 60 to 80 years with good maintenance and regular refurbishment.
In the same period, a wind or solar plant will need to be “re-powered” at least 4 times.
A mature, fully renewable electricity system would require a massive ongoing never-ending capital investment program wildly in excess of anything ever required for conventional plant, simply to replaced expired wind & solar.
It’s not only the up front costs that put it over the cliff, but even more its the ongoing recurring replacement costs due to short design/service lives.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  ltexpat
October 19, 2022 8:57 am

According to Wind Europe 38GW of onshore wind capacity in Europe will be reaching the end of its normal operating life of 20years by 2025.

All 5 of Europe’s wind turbine manufacturers are currently operating at massive losses and cannot invest in new projects.

HotScot
Reply to  Josh
October 18, 2022 5:39 pm

Think about it.

Were wind turbines so great they wouldn’t have been abandoned for coal.

Reply to  Josh
October 18, 2022 7:03 pm

https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html

n subsequent project phases, NREL adjusted the estimates to a consistent set of methods and assumptions specific to each technology. Like the published data, the harmonized data showed that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar, wind, and nuclear technologies are considerably lower and less variable than emissions from technologies powered by combustion-based natural gas and coal.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x

Published estimates ranged from 1.7 to 81 grams CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2-eq/kWh), with median and interquartile range (IQR) both at 12 g CO2-eq/kWh. After adjusting the published estimates to use consistent gross system boundaries and values for several important system parameters, the total range was reduced by 47% to 3.0 to 45 g CO2-eq/kWh and the IQR was reduced by 14% to 10 g CO2-eq/kWh, while the median remained relatively constant (11 g CO2-eq/kWh). Harmonization of capacity factor resulted in the largest reduction in variability in life cycle GHG emission estimates.

HotScot
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 3:21 am

NREL

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

mal
Reply to  HotScot
October 19, 2022 9:52 pm

Yep, when you get paid for a result on paper, you get the result on paper. Real world not so much.

Megs
Reply to  Josh
October 20, 2022 3:45 am

Josh we live in a Renewable Energy Zone, unfortunately. We’ve heard every lie under the sun, pun intended, in regards to solar panels. The developers quote C02 figures for solar panels and fail to tell you that these examples were made in Europe, likely with nuclear energy. And the payback is based on ‘installed capacity’ at a 24/7 production rate, which is impossible to achieve. The time factor needs to be increased significantly in regards to ‘years to payback’.

This figure also excludes frames, inverters, wiring and the thousands of pylons which are buried deep in the ground. But the big one is transport. The shipping of raw materials, transport to processors, transport to manufacturers and then the finished product to ports, shipping to destination points around the globe and then transport to their final destinations.

Just one wind/solar project near us will require 70 to 80 large truck movements every day of the three year project. That figure will increase to 130 truck movements per day during peak build. Add to that 300 small vehicle movements for tradespeople and construction workers. There will be 700 workers on the project during peak build, most of them backpackers. The nearest port to us is 300 kilometres away. The transport of 60 wind turbines at 7MW each and standing at 280m high and 200m wide and delivered in parts will use up a considerable amount of diesel, as will the million or so solar panels and associated infrastructure for both. Add to that containers of battery backup.

The blades of these particular turbines are almost 100 metres long and the transport route has to be planned in advance. Taking a turbine blade around winding country roads and corners requires a wide sweep and two vehicles. In many instances trees and shrubs need to be removed along the route in advance so that the blades can be transported.

Take all that into account and have a look at how solar panels are made in China, which is where almost all of Australia’s solar panels come from, in the link below. And then think about the farce of saving C02. That is, even if C02 was a problem at all.

All this and the combined project can only produce energy for around 30% of the installed capacity. Less in times of cloudy weather and still days. The backup batteries were designed to smooth the variable supply of energy, they cannot supply power for long periods of time and indeed should not be run down below 20%. Commercial solar lasts around 20 years, wind turbines around 15 years and batteries 10 years. How is any of this in any way clean, green or sustainable? None of this even takes decommissioning, disposal and land restoration into account. Mountains of toxic waste is created at every stage in the lifespan of so called green energy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels

jeffery p
October 18, 2022 7:11 am

From a column by Walter Russel Mead in today’s Wall Street Journal:

“…Hydrogen, I kept hearing, is the answer to German prayers. Hydrogen can replace fossil fuels for a range of industrial processes, and hydrogen generated by variable renewable energy sources like wind and solar can ensure a stable energy supply on days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. …”

MORE — Germans See Affluence Ahead https://www.wsj.com/articles/germans-see-affluence-ahead-putin-ukraine-energy-crisis-manufacturing-lng-hydrogen-china-economy-11666036504

Last edited 3 months ago by jeffery p
Lil-Mike
Reply to  jeffery p
October 18, 2022 9:33 am

A GE paper stated the ROI for hydrolizing hydrogen out of water, and burning that to spin a generator is 4% efficient.

You put $100 in, get $4 out.

ih_fan
Reply to  Lil-Mike
October 18, 2022 11:55 am

You put $100 in, get $4 out.

Typical operating efficiency of virtually every government operation. Put $100 in and get $4 of value out of it.

Does this include 10% for the big guy?

Dave Fair
Reply to  ih_fan
October 18, 2022 1:17 pm

Wrong-o. Put $100 in and government spends $200.

jeffery p
Reply to  jeffery p
October 18, 2022 12:11 pm

Why did that get down voted? I didn’t post 8t because I agreed. I posted because it is obvious folly. It is delusional thinking.

Reply to  jeffery p
October 18, 2022 5:24 pm

Reads like you support and even push hydrogen, that’s why.

Reply to  jeffery p
October 19, 2022 5:58 am

because readers are stupid

strativarius
October 18, 2022 7:20 am

In my religion, I suppose it qualifies as such in these strange days, I have an altar to the Father of Loud.

2 X 4X12 speaker cabs and a 100W head; and as with any decent monster, there is more than one head. 220/240V is all it needs and I don’t care where it comes from as long as it’s there….

“All our customers’ homes and businesses get 100% renewable electricity, at no extra cost”

That’s two lies straight off!

“The electricity supplied to homes and businesses comes from the National Grid “

Which is nowhere near 100% renewable

https://www.eonenergy.com/renewable.html

Rock ‘n’ roll.

Last edited 3 months ago by strativarius
william Johnston
Reply to  strativarius
October 18, 2022 8:11 am

“The national grid”. Sorta like “obumers stash”?

Redge
Reply to  strativarius
October 18, 2022 8:48 am

I’ve reported Octopus to the ASA for the same nonsense claim.

I suspect nothing will come of it, but you never know,

joe x
Reply to  strativarius
October 18, 2022 12:12 pm

is that a marshall stack you speak of?

Strativarius
Reply to  joe x
October 18, 2022 11:52 pm

Indeed I do!

Nick Graves
Reply to  Strativarius
October 19, 2022 12:27 am

Does it go up to 11, though?

mal
Reply to  strativarius
October 19, 2022 9:55 pm

Just like to solar salesman tell me my solar power was store on the grid. I told him that was BS power on the grid is used the minute it produced, PERIOD.

CD in Wisconsin
October 18, 2022 7:29 am

And CNN (not surprisingly) is going ga-ga over a new $4.6 billion dollar ammonia plant in South Africa that is supposed to be (as the article says) ‘A completely green process’. It will use electrolysis using solar panels and extract nitrogen from the air according to the article.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/18/africa/green-ammonia-hive-energy-scn-climate-spc-intl/index.html

I don’t know if this plant will be the ‘green alternative fuel’ answer that its pushers say it is, but I have my serious doubts about it. Somehow, most of the ideas the green ideologists come up with never seem to work out as planned.

Doonman
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 18, 2022 8:07 am

Blue Ammonia. It’s the next best subsidized synfuel. Just ignore the NOx and the toxic ammonia storage itself and you’re good to go.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
October 18, 2022 1:24 pm

And inventing devices that can use it for energy input, e.g. marine engines.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 18, 2022 9:56 am

Ideas are easy. Engineering is hard.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 18, 2022 10:26 am

Yes, I’ll bet engineering can be pretty hard. The Green elitists come up with all these grand ideas and expect all the little people to work out all the nasty little details that probably make the idea unworkable.

mal
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 19, 2022 9:59 pm

Just like refineries are being fine for not using switch grass ethanol, switch grass ethanol look good on paper and congress bought into it on the advice of our educated idiots, mandated it, when it turn out not to work. Congress just collects the fine and blame the refineries for the add cost.

Walter Sobchak
October 18, 2022 7:38 am

“Up to now, the main strategy has been to buy most of the devices from China, where they are made largely using energy from coal.”

Don’t forget the slave labor.

DaveS
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 18, 2022 10:18 am

All those ‘green jobs’ they keep promising have to exist somewhere….

Reply to  DaveS
October 18, 2022 6:00 pm

Same place as electric color flying unicorns shooting rainbows out their back side.
Same place where electricity costs are falling instead of rising…

Unless you want to train for one of those jobs riding helicopters to fix high tension power lines…

All of the fantasy places lead to rubber rooms.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  DaveS
October 19, 2022 9:20 am

Wind Europe letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission ( 22 Feb 2022)

“Net result is the industry is cutting jobs……..Germany alone has lost over 50,000 jobs in the last six years”

mal
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 19, 2022 10:00 pm

Greens knowing or unknowing want slave labor back world wide.

Andy Pattullo
October 18, 2022 7:54 am

That any adult could be surprised by this outcome is a measure of how easy it is to ignore reality and deceive one’s self with magical thinking.

The Dark Lord
October 18, 2022 8:07 am

the silly thing is to “make” the renewable energy tools (solar panel, wind turbines) they have to dump years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere just to build them … the supposed CO2 breakeven for all of this is years down the road (if ever) … I would hazard a guess that solar panel and wind turbine production are a significant percentage of global CO2 emissions TODAY …

plus 20 years from now all of these panels and wind turbines will need to be replaced … the fuel maybe be “renewable” but the engines (solar panels, wind turbines) that harvest this “cheap/free” fuel are always in need of refurbishment or replacement …

this is worse than the tulip mania that struck investors years ago … at least then the investors just got scammed of their money … today they are destroying the energy foundation of our civilization …

Last edited 3 months ago by The Dark Lord
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  The Dark Lord
October 19, 2022 12:12 pm

I did my own calculations on this: energy from fossil fuels in for electrical energy from solar and wind out. It is not just the panels or turbines that have to be considered. Concrete for bases, steel and aluminum for racks and structures; roads, cranes, copper wires, breakers+isolators, computer controls, communication wires, maintenance vehicles, towns for maintenance and replacement workers to live in; then decommissioning, disposal, recycling until eventually, a new machine or panel is created and erected. None of these things last long.

About 3/4 of the energy produced by a new wind turbine is required to replace it. In other words the return is 1.333 on energy invested. However much electricity you need, the system has to generate 4 times that to keep itself running, drawing off 25% of that to run society.

A modern society requires a return of about 9 to be viable. For solar the return is 0.8-0.85. In short, it is negative. You have in invest more energy in the system of production, mounting and disposal of a solar panel than it will ever produce. The gap has to be subsidized by something else. That is my conclusion, without considering the energy investment in storage (because systems of storage vary tremendously) that is supposed to make the green energy sector viable.

Conclusion – replacing nuclear, coal and natural gas with such a limited definition of “renewables” is hopeless. Greens even want to stop large scale hydro, which returns about 75:1 ERoEI. Why? Who cares. It is a stupid idea.

The only long term hope is nuclear, first fission then fusion. The rest is noise, and superglue, and tomato soup and protesters wearing nylon jackets and polyurethane Air Jordans.

Kevin
October 18, 2022 8:26 am

I don’t believe the Gigafactory in Nevada gets a significant fraction of its electrical needs from its rooftop solar installation despite the factory located in sunny Nevada. And forget about the gigafactory in Buffalo, NY!

Any time I ask a wind/solar advocate how these technologies can be expected to supply our electricity needs when their own manufacturers don’t use them, they refuse to answer.

You would think they would want to leverage their decarbonization efforts by using their own technology at the beginning of the production chain.

PCman999
Reply to  Kevin
October 18, 2022 11:55 am

If they used their own solar power then they would be paying the full price (amortized costs+fixed costs+maintenance+??? all spread out over the life of the panels or turbines) versus getting the power from the grid that’s subsidized by the reliable fuelled units and by other rate payers (paying to maintain the grid).

Really, they should be installing panels on their property to feed the grid to get inflated rates and other bonuses, but draw their electricity from the grid to get it at a lower rate – instead of net metering.

Mantis
October 18, 2022 8:36 am

They need fossil fuels not just to subsidize the economics of their fantasies, but also to subsidize their virtue signaling. Without fossil fuels, the entire scam falls apart. Hopefully some people that haven’t been fully indoctrinated are paying attention.

Strativarius
Reply to  Mantis
October 18, 2022 9:36 am

Without very expensive and relatively difficult to obtain fossil fuels, the entire scam falls apart.

jeffery p
Reply to  Strativarius
October 18, 2022 12:08 pm

Fossil fuels are not very expensive or relatively difficult to obtain.

mal
Reply to  jeffery p
October 19, 2022 10:04 pm

Their working to change that by artificial means. They are asking for slavey back but are bright enough not to put it that way.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mantis
October 18, 2022 1:32 pm

As the EU is now learning. But the powers that be are blaming natural gas(NG). I assume the propaganda will work and they will still strive for Nut Zero. Without developing more coal and NG fracking the EU is in for a tough run. In the short term all they can do is ration fuel and electricity. You don’t want to be a pensioner.

John Bell
October 18, 2022 9:33 am

Yup! They never listen to me, that all these green energy ideas require LOTS of FF to keep going. Libs are so good at fooling themselves because they are way too idealistic and ignorant.

DaveS
October 18, 2022 10:21 am

Britishvolt, a government-backed developer of battery cell technologies”

So more of my taxes being p*ssed away.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  DaveS
October 18, 2022 11:00 am

Your government has joined forces with a business. I believe Mussolini had a name for that.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  DaveS
October 19, 2022 9:39 am

They are currently in dire straits, need a massive injection of cash and may go under by the end of the year.

n.n
October 18, 2022 10:51 am

They can when green drivers are renewed and blowing within the operating limits of Green converters. The problem is the unreliability, cost, and grayness of Green technology.

ASTONERII
October 18, 2022 11:29 am

I think the rule should be that these freaks should have to build out their little utopia on some isolated plot of land and prove it works all on its own. Let them import some level of power generation created outside, and from that power source, they have to mine, manufacture and put up their proving grounds.

Tom Abbott
October 18, 2022 12:18 pm

From the article: “According to the automobile economist Stefan Bratzel, the development is an immediate threat to the industry. . . . “If electric cars become more expensive to use, the surge in electric mobility is in danger of collapsing. . . .”

Electric cars will not only become more expensive due to increased electricity costs, but also due to increased raw materials costs.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Dave Fair
October 18, 2022 1:35 pm

Learn Mandarin.

markl
October 18, 2022 2:01 pm

The promised renewable energy utopia is collapsing before it barely got started. Funny thing that reality.

Rich Lambert
October 18, 2022 2:47 pm

Here’s a link to an article about the Oklahoma City Veterans Hospital installing solar panels. https://www.city-sentinel.com/news/va-funds-solar-energy-project-in-oklahoma-city/article_dde88d2e-00a4-5e0e-a4c3-ddd95989d917.html

The project cost $4.6 million to save $110,000 per year. It will never pay for itself by a long shot. Nothing ‘green’ about it. A waste of our money.

mal
Reply to  Rich Lambert
October 19, 2022 10:07 pm

It will take 41 years to pay for a plant that might not last ten and at best twenty. Does not any one pencil out anything? The educate idiots will and are destroying everything they touch.

2hotel9
October 18, 2022 2:51 pm

“They Can’t Make Green Energy Using Only Green Energy” No shit.

Pat Frank
October 18, 2022 2:58 pm

They Can’t Make Green Energy Using Only Green Energy
That understanding has been offered by many at WUWT for at least the last 5 years; possibly the last 10.

October 18, 2022 4:14 pm

the Times (London) reports on October 15 that now they are “running out of money” and need an infusion of some 200 million pounds by year end to avoid going bust”

“Year end”? As in the end of this calendar year?

How odd. Businesses usually track their performance by an accounting year.

Instead, “they are “running out of money” within 10 weeks?

  • Are they going miss payroll?
  • Fail to pay debts on time?
  • Capital expenses?
  • Unable to pay for product, often already delivered?

Any investor thinking through their money needs with this company should pull their funds immediate and run, don’t walk, towards the exits!

observa
October 18, 2022 5:16 pm

“The clean energy transition cannot be built on dirty mining,” 
There’s lithium in them thar hills – but fears grow over US ‘white gold’ boom (msn.com)
Unicorn farts?….fairy dust?…Greta thought bubbles?….renewable whale oil?

October 18, 2022 5:39 pm

. How are they going to achieve that at reasonable cost using just the wind and sun as energy sources?
Up to now, the main strategy has been to buy most of the devices from China, where they are made largely using energy from coal.

china is moving away from coal. all over

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 9:28 am

You meant to say China is expanding coal mining and generating capacity.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 19, 2022 9:55 am

In 2021 176GW of coal fired power capacity was under construction worldwide. More than half of this was in China. In the first quarter of 2022 it approved a further 8.63GW almost half as much as it did in the whole of 2021.

Moving away from coal?

mal
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 19, 2022 10:17 pm

Well in the first quarter of 2022 they did half as much as they did in 2021 so they must be moving away from coal. Some people cannot grasp what a full year is. If Steve in that camp is had to say but I would not think so, he is brighter than than.

As a friend once said(his job was to make the physic professor demonstration work) I have heard a lot stupid thing come from very bright people. My though those people are not that bright they have exceptional memories, no logic skills.

My field is computer technology on the implantation stage, there are people that have all the paper and certification you would want, God forbid they try to set up a network or repair anything. Most of those guys in my field teach. My assumption most fields are not much different.

Chris
October 18, 2022 5:48 pm

China makes most of the worlds solar panels (often with a dubious supply chain as well). China is building more coal fired electricity generators. QED.

Last edited 3 months ago by Chris
Bob
October 18, 2022 6:15 pm

How can so many smart people be so stupid?

observa
Reply to  Bob
October 18, 2022 8:23 pm

Well you get smart metered to be flexibly smart-
Fixed v Flexible – SA Power Networks

mal
Reply to  observa
October 19, 2022 10:20 pm

Gee, somehow that solar power is going to have a problem paying for itself. Benefit, versus true cost is rearing its ugly head.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights