Skip to content

Solar & Wind To Replace All Fossil Fuels Within Two Decades–According To Renewable Lobby

April 29, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 image

Solar photovoltaic and wind power are rapidly getting cheaper and more abundant – so much so that they are on track to entirely supplant fossil fuels worldwide within two decades, with the time frame depending mostly on politics. The protestation from some politicians that we need to build new coal stations sounds rather quaint.

 

The reality is that the rising tide of solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind energy offers our only realistic chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

No other greenhouse solution comes close, and it is very hard to envision any timely response to climate change that does not involve PV and wind doing most of the heavy lifting.

Sadly, attempts to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have come to naught due to technical difficulties and high cost. Thus, to curtail global warming we need to replace fossil fuel use entirely, with energy sources that meet these criteria:

  • very large and preferably ubiquitous resource base
  • low or zero greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts
  • abundant or unlimited raw materials
  • minimal security concerns in respect of warfare, terrorism and accidents
  • low cost
  • already available in mass production.

Solar PV meets all of these criteria, while wind energy also meets many of them, although wind is not as globally ubiquitous as sunshine. We will have sunshine and wind for billions of years to come. It is very hard to imagine humanity going to war over sunlight.

Most of the world’s population lives at low latitudes (less than 35°), where sunlight is abundant and varies little between seasons. Wind energy is also widely available, particularly at higher latitudes.

PV and wind have minimal environmental impacts and water requirements. The raw materials for PV – silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, aluminium, glass, steel and small amounts of other materials – are effectively in unlimited supply.

Wind energy is an important complement to PV because it often produces at different times and places, allowing a smoother combined energy output. In terms of worldwide annual electricity production wind is still ahead of PV but is growing more slowly. The wind energy resource is much smaller than the solar resource, and so PV will likely dominate in the end….

Other clean energy technologies can realistically play only a minor supporting role. The solar thermal industry is hundreds of times smaller than the fast-growing PV industry (because of higher costs). Hydro power, geothermal, wave and tidal energy are only significant prospects in particular regions.

Biomass energy is inefficient and its requirement for soil, water and fertiliser put it in conflict with food production and ecosystems. Nuclear is too expensive, and its construction rates are too slow to catch PV and wind.

 

Read the rest here:

https://theconversation.com/amp/solar-pv-and-wind-are-on-track-to-replace-all-coal-oil-and-gas-within-two-decades-94033

 

So, how do they come to this crackpot conclusion? More importantly, how do they attempt to convince their readers?

They start with this grossly deceptive graph, which pretends that PV and wind is now dominating the electricity market:

image

 

In fact, all it shows is that PV and wind are accounting for 60% of new generation capacity.

Capacity, of course, has little to do with actual generation, which will be far less in the case of PV and wind. But more significantly, there is little need for new fossil fuel capacity, as it is already in place.

The figure quoted for PV and wind of 200 GW (which is in any event pure guesswork) would be capable of producing about 260 TWh pa (assuming a load factor of 15%). Given that global electricity production in 2016 was 24816 TWh, this would only meet 1% of global demand.

Moreover, electricity generation has increased at a rate of 542 TWh every year since 2010. In other words, the projected increase in PV and wind capacity would only be able to supply about half of the increase in demand each year.

Worse still for promoters of renewable energy, electricity only accounts for about 40% of total energy, meaning that the contribution from PV and wind will be even tinier. In 2016, for instance, the two sectors only supplied 2% of global primary energy consumption.

These real figures hardly bear out the myth of renewable energy dominance, which the authors would like readers to believe.

The second trick is to pretend that PV and wind output will continue to grow each year at recent rates:

Together, PV and wind currently produce about 7% of the world’s electricity. Worldwide over the past five years, PV capacity has grown by 28% per year, and wind by 13% per year. Remarkably, because of the slow or nonexistent growth rates of coal and gas, current trends put the world on track to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2032.

file-20180405-189804-1fhhia3 

This is quite idiotic. I noted some similar claim in a post a few weeks ago, and pointed out that, using the same logic, a car which did 0-60mph in 10 seconds would be travelling at the speed of light after a short while if the rate of acceleration continued.

In absolute terms, wind and solar generation has risen from 501 to 1293 TWh in the last five years, and now accounts for 5% of global electricity supply. Even assuming demand stays flat, at the current rate of increase, 158 TWh pa, wind and solar will still only account for 14% of global demand by 2030. (The increase between 2015 and 2016 was 179 TWh).

 

The article bases much of its case on the supposed cheapness of renewables, which are now claimed to be competitive with conventional power. Leaving aside the fact that the intrinsic value of intermittent power is much less than that of dispatchable power, and that the real cost of renewables must include the cost of intermittency, the authors make one huge, stonking blunder.

There is already enough conventional capacity in existence to supply most of the world’s needs. Why therefore would anybody want to spend money building more?

Would you buy a second car because its running costs were lower?

 

The whole question of intermittency is glossed over in the article:

PV and wind are often described as “intermittent” energy sources. But stabilising the grid is relatively straightforward, with the help of storage and high-voltage interconnectors to smooth out local weather effects.

By far the leading storage technologies are pumped hydro and batteries, with a combined market share of 97%.

The claim that pumped hydro and batteries will do the job, because they account for 97% of current storage, is yet another meaningless statistic from the authors.

In reality, that is about all the storage we have at the moment.

Pumped hydro is extremely limited by the availability of suitable resources. Energy from pumped storage in the UK for instance has not changed in the last 20 years.

You might also note that the authors are reluctant to compare the actual figures for pumped hydro with batteries. But this is what their link shows:

image

http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects/data_visualization

In simple terms, we can forget about the various forms of non hydro storage. If you’ve got plenty of lakes and mountains, then fine. Otherwise, forget it.

 

But perhaps the most extraordinarily ludicrous claim made is that solar power, a long with a bit of wind, can meet mankind’s needs for energy:

Solar PV meets all of these criteria, while wind energy also meets many of them, although wind is not as globally ubiquitous as sunshine. We will have sunshine and wind for billions of years to come. It is very hard to imagine humanity going to war over sunlight.

Most of the world’s population lives at low latitudes (less than 35°), where sunlight is abundant and varies little between seasons. Wind energy is also widely available, particularly at higher latitudes.

It may be possible for solar power to fulfil a portion of energy needs in those low latitude countries. And, of course, that is for them to decide theirselves.

But in many northerly latitude countries, such  policy would be suicide, both economically and literally.

In the UK, for instance, solar power ran at just 4.8% of capacity in Q4 last year, and in the mid winter months this figure will be lower still:

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

Wind power may be widely available, as the article suggests, but it is also disastrously unreliable. Any grid that relied largely on wind power would very quickly implode.

One would assume that the authors, given their accreditations, would know all of this. (Blakers is a Professor of Engineering, whilst Stocks is a Research Fellow). So one is entitled to question why they wrote this pile of rubbish in the first place.

But then when you read their full accreditations, you understand why:

image

https://theconversation.com/amp/solar-pv-and-wind-are-on-track-to-replace-all-coal-oil-and-gas-within-two-decades-94033

In other words, Blakers and Stocks have been paid by the renewable lobby to write this rubbish.

Shame on The Conversation for printing such palpable nonsense, and shame on the Australian National University for funding it.

Advertisements
53 Comments
  1. Dave Ward permalink
    April 29, 2018 9:46 am

    “Would you buy a second car because its running costs were lower?”

    Because it’s YOUR choice? There’s a world of difference between what people do with their own money, and what governments do with money (effectively) stolen from them, in the form of taxes – particularly when they haven’t sought public approval first..

    “You might also note that the authors are reluctant to compare the actual figures for pumped hydro with batteries”

    And the table you linked to makes the classic error of confusing POWER with CAPACITY! It doesn’t matter a fig if one super duper battery will provide enough (instantaneous) power to run the entire country, if it will only do so for a few seconds before becoming discharged!

  2. Charles Wardrop, permalink
    April 29, 2018 9:47 am

    An educated, 35 yr old professional, whom I had just met, replying to my question “What is your view on wind turbines”, (plentiful around her area) said that she would rather look at them than at a nuclear power plant!
    Such views are common amongst the (incompletely) educated, here in Scotland at least.

    How can we disabuse them, without seeming rude?

    • tempestnut permalink
      April 29, 2018 12:16 pm

      “How can we disabuse them, without seeming rude?” You can’t. As a parent of 4 Millennials I can safely say they have been taught to think they are more highly intelligent and better educated than their parents generation. I have found that being rude is about the only way to kick start their thought processes. But the trick is to tell them you are being rude to them, otherwise it often won’t work. My 4 are now red pilled, but are yet to fully grasp just how much government is trying to con us.

      • April 29, 2018 1:04 pm

        You could begin by asking how many wind turbines would equal one Sizewell B.

        Your correspondent might be surprised to know that, conservatively, this is about 1500 onshore turbines.

        Calculation follows:

        1 Sizewell B: conservative output 1000MW * 365.25d * 24h = 8,766,000 MWh

        1 Whitelee “UK’s largest onshore windfarm” near Glasgow. 215 turbines with total capacity of 539MW and a capacity factor of 27% (as per their website):

        539MW * 27% * 365.25d * 24h = 1,275,716 MWh

        Sizewell B is worth more than 7 Whitelees (I conservatively reduced Sizewell’s output from about 1.25 GW to 1 GW to allow for maintenance and unplanned outages).

        215 turbines * 7 = 1500 turbines (ish).

        Of course, half the time 7 Whitelees produce more than Sizewell B; the rest of the time it produces less. 1500 turbines or one Sizewell B? I know what I’d rather look at. Sizewell is actually not that bad, as monstrosities go.

    • Sheri permalink
      April 29, 2018 3:58 pm

      I’d much rather look at ONE nuclear plant rather than the HUNDREDS of turbines I can see from home and cabin.

  3. April 29, 2018 10:28 am

    Read. My. Lips.

    • CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

    • So-called “renewables” cannot totally replace coal/gas/nuclear since they cannot provide a reliable supply of energy.

    • Ergo there is no good reason and a whole series of bad reasons even to try to rely on wind/solar for all future energy needs.

    • The entire argument is fundamentally dishonest, biased, politically motivated, and even more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.

    Next!

    • Gamecock permalink
      April 30, 2018 1:41 pm

      You miss a real possibility, Mr Jackson. All of this stuff is about centrally produced electricity. If they keep mucking it up, people will revert to producing their own electricity, “off-the-grid” as it is termed.

      ‘they are on track to entirely supplant fossil fuels worldwide within two decades’

      Sales of diesel generators will reach the hundreds of millions.

  4. Peter F Gill permalink
    April 29, 2018 11:21 am

    David MacKay (Chief Adviser to the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change) gave an interview just over a week before his untimely death. The interviewer asked him how he would satisfy the nation’s electricity generation requirement in future. He said base load nuclear, the rest fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. He was of course mainly right except for the need for carbon capture and storage. The interviewer queried why he had not mentioned solar of wind. David pointed out that the ratio of availability of sunlight is of the order of 9:1 summer to winter and consequently so much back-up is required in winter that it is not worth it. He explained that because of the unpredictable variability of wind a similar argument applies.

    • brian armstrong permalink
      April 29, 2018 12:39 pm

      Do we heed to store wind and solar if we can store the other renewables mentioned on renewable table

      • Peter F Gill permalink
        April 29, 2018 6:12 pm

        It is an economic delusion to think that we can store energy from intermittent sources (PV & wind) at the scale required. As someone pointed out in the article, it is difficult to find the land and gain the required permissions in the UK to convert electrical energy to potential gravitational energy (pumped storage) and if there was an existing economic battery solution it would have already be available at large scale now. Remember that this whole so-called renewable edifice is built on the false premise that we need to eliminate anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.

  5. Michael Hutton permalink
    April 29, 2018 11:54 am

    my iPad

  6. Athelstan permalink
    April 29, 2018 1:09 pm

    “The reality is that the rising tide of solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind energy offers our only realistic chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.”

    “dangerous climate change”

    Man made CO2 causes warming doncha mean?

    “climate change2, indeed? It is, a nebulous phrase significant of not much at all, unless you count it the greatest man made CON ever dreamed up, so much so that, even ponzi scamming man extraordinaire Bernie Madoff was impressed.

    • Gamecock permalink
      April 30, 2018 1:45 pm

      Agreed. ‘Climate change’ is undefined. Undefined has no superlatives, else ‘dangerous climate change’ would be undefineder.

  7. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 29, 2018 2:23 pm

    If only tpb could arrange for a first world state to be the guinea-pig for renewables….oh! They did already. Step fwd South Australia and tell us how well that’s working.
    When do ‘scientists’ like Blakers and Stocks begin to realise that empirical, real-world data trumps their ivory tower models?

    • Sheri permalink
      April 29, 2018 3:59 pm

      Never.

      • Athelstan permalink
        April 29, 2018 11:57 pm

        Well, until hell freezes over.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 30, 2018 12:56 pm

      Blakers, to the embarrassment of those of us who are, is an engineer.

  8. Alan Haile permalink
    April 29, 2018 2:36 pm

    Why anyone bothers to read anything in The Conversation is a mystery to me.

  9. Roger Graves permalink
    April 29, 2018 2:38 pm

    To understand this, just follow the money. So far this century, some three trillion (10^12) US dollars has been spent on so-called renewable energy, mainly wind and solar. If we are to talk in terms of replacing all our electricity generation with renewables, the price will probably be at least ten times this amount.

    With this much money potentially sloshing around, you can get people to say anything.

    P.S. as I have said before, give me control of all research funding and I will guarantee to have the scientific establishment solemnly declaring that the world is flat.

  10. RAH permalink
    April 29, 2018 2:41 pm

    I sometimes can’t decide who deals in the greatest fantasies? It seems that AGW (Scientists), government officials, and private concerns with a vested interest in “Green energy” are in a competition to see who can fabricate the biggest whooper!

  11. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 29, 2018 2:42 pm

    Tpb = tptb.
    I recommend reading the comments at the Conversation. So many people disconnected from real world. Like the comments that praise S.A. exceeding power requirements with renewables on a given date and time, yet never be bewailing the outages when they don’t. Which happen more often, I bet.

    • jack broughton permalink
      April 29, 2018 3:03 pm

      Harry, What is the equation, beyond me!

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        April 29, 2018 4:36 pm

        Jack. Apologies. I was correcting a typo in an earlier comment. Meant to be: The Powers That Be.

  12. April 29, 2018 2:57 pm

    That just tells you something of the gulf between academic ‘engineering’ and the real world private sector engineering. I camp in the latter and my stuff works. Calling themselves engineers embarasses the rest of the profession.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 30, 2018 12:59 pm

      Well said. An engineering model is validated against reality and test results – climate models are not. Engineering models are useful – climate models are not.

  13. Bitter&twisted permalink
    April 29, 2018 3:29 pm

    A late April Fool?
    We can but hope.

  14. Sheri permalink
    April 29, 2018 4:10 pm

    http://climate4kids.blogspot.com/2014/10/out-of-power.html

    For the past 2 1/2 days, there has been basically zero wind power from the turbines I can see. Our wind was under 5 mph. Yesterday, there was a 30 mph gust out of nowhere….Anyway, if we were using wind only, we would not be typing. Yes, wind blows somewhere, but if most places are under 10 mph, you’re not typing, your IPhone is dead and you’re staring at a wall for entertainment. This is the world these “kind, caring people” want you to live in. They won’t. They’ll keep on using fossil fuels in generators, etc, because they are privileged. You’re nothing.

  15. Robin Guenier permalink
    April 29, 2018 4:47 pm

    This is interesting: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#34d84bf71dc6

    An extract:

    Part of the problem is that many reporters don’t understand electricity. They think of electricity as a commodity when it is, in fact, a service — like eating at a restaurant.

    The price we pay for the luxury of eating out isn’t just the cost of the ingredients most of which which, like solar panels and wind turbines, have declined for decades.

    Rather, the price of services like eating out and electricity reflect the cost not only of a few ingredients but also their preparation and delivery.

    • NeilC permalink
      April 29, 2018 5:24 pm

      Take away the subsidies and you’ll end up with the German situation with solar which has just died, and wind won’t be far behind.

      But the way I see it, is to ask a simple question would you rather pay £45 per Mw/h for coal/gas or £90 per Mw/h for wind/solar or even £198 per Mw/h for tidal?

      I wonder what normal people would say?

  16. dennisambler permalink
    April 29, 2018 5:11 pm

    A couple of years ago I was in a car park at Mumbles, Swansea. The solar powered ticket machine wasn’t working and there was thick cloud that day, often the case in Wales, so the panels weren’t generating enough to operate it.

    Then a council van arrived and the driver got out with a battery which he swapped for the one in the ticket machine. Ticket machine duly working again, (unfortunately!)

    A short conversation revealed that the solar panels don’t charge the batteries effectively enough, so the council send operatives around to change them with batteries that are re-charged back at the depot, from the mains.

    For public consumption the council is installing solar-powered equipment and doing its bit to save the planet. At the sharp end, council operatives have a workaround.

    • John Palmer permalink
      April 29, 2018 6:26 pm

      The sums it up so beautifully!
      Virtue-signalling exemplified.
      As we say in London… a bunch of ‘Merchant Bankers’.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 30, 2018 1:00 pm

        And therefore costing residents more than just powering them properly.

  17. markl permalink
    April 29, 2018 6:26 pm

    Nothing but misguided wishful thinking. Some believe if they keep telling the same story over and over it will come true. Simple mathematics show anyone that wind and solar cannot exist on it’s own. Besides not being able to provide 24X7 energy or enough power to charge “storage” it cannot provide enough energy to build itself so what happens when replacement and additions are needed once we go “all renewable”?

  18. Charles Wardrop permalink
    April 29, 2018 7:06 pm

    We elect politicos to get us the best deal for our money, and assume that they should be capable of that, even if they have to depend on expert advisers, like the late Prof. MacKay, whose advice they should take, or at least take seriously, and know the perils of group think. Energy and war making are 2 topics they have usually got wrong, post WW2.
    Why?

    • Paddy permalink
      April 30, 2018 6:54 am

      The pollies don’t know their #rs# from a hole in the ground. They do what the civil servants tell them. Blame the civil servants.

      • nigel permalink
        April 30, 2018 7:11 am

        “Blame the civil servants.”

        I expect there is enough blame to go around.

        However, I have known several Ministers quite well, and find that they do sincerely believe a few things – which they learned in a superficial and distorted way from excitable mates at University. Then they become like the traditional soldier in the British Army.

        Officer, filling in form: What is your religious attitude Smith?

        Man: Try not to think about it, Sir!

        Officer: C of E it is.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 30, 2018 1:03 pm

        I think many civil servants bang their heads on the wall in trying to deal with the current crop of morons masquerading as MPs when trying to educate them such is their belief in their superiority and entrenched views.

  19. Peter F Gill permalink
    April 29, 2018 7:27 pm

    @Charles W: Actually Charles David was sold hook line and sinker on the CO2 nonsense which is why he maintained the need for CCS. I pointed out to him that whilst he used Pareto on energy matters, I found it odd that he did not approach the subject of climate change (or anthropogenic global warming as it used to be called) in a similar way. As CCS is both unproven at the scale required and would be very expensive (as they would say in Pretty Woman), given that David advised DECC on the need for CO2 emission reduction, he gave mixed messages and hence faulted advice.

  20. Broadlands permalink
    April 29, 2018 7:50 pm

    Renewables cannot lower atmospheric CO2 back to 350 ppm… a requirement of the Paris Accord. Solar panel “farms”, lots of new (and inedible) trees, even wind turbines everywhere will necessarily tske up space where food agriculture is being grown for an increasing global population…”solar/wind footprints”. Add into that the need for space to capture and bury billions of tons of compressed CO2, plus the HUGE cost of it all, and it seems like a solid prescription for total failure. “High probability”? Maybe the modelers who have predicted the “highly dangerous” future with “high probability” can model that?

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 29, 2018 9:09 pm

      Renewables cannot lower atmospheric CO2 back to 350 ppm… a requirement of the Paris Accord.

      The Paris Agreement contains no such requirement. In fact it contains hardly any requirements.

  21. April 29, 2018 8:54 pm

    Solar & Wind To Replace All Fossil Fuels Within Two Decades

    Plus a few billion batteries and an infinite supply of cash, resources and manpower. If you don’t live in a wealthy country – tough.

    That’s the implication.

    • Gamecock permalink
      April 30, 2018 1:52 pm

      Drax will burn the cash for generating electricity.

  22. April 30, 2018 2:40 am

    The only way to reduce co2 effectively is to reduce population growth. If we were able to reduce the world’s population by half in two or three generations, that would effectively reduce manmade co2 by fifty percent and would accomplish not only the co2 target, but would also reduce stresses on the planet that we have been applying relentlessly since the industrial revolution. This requires none of the renewable tech discussed above, but if used in conjunction would assist somewhat I suppose.

    So the question becomes: what is the right population number for the planet, and how do we get there? How can we reduce the world population in a way that is acceptable, fair and effective? China was able to reduce it’s population significantly with it’s one child policy, could the rest of the world do the same? The Western world has already accomplished a stable, and often shrinking, birthrate via education and wealth. So it seems that the talk now falls on the third world to do the same, either through education or government edict.

    I know that this approach will raise the hackles of many, but the reality is that any approach that is going to be effective will be unpleasant. Or we can just carry on as normal and have the population increase to the ten billion level. Sure, there are all sorts of analysis that says the population will stabalize at some reasonable number, but there are also many others that have no such short-sightedness. There will always be a large core of poor uneducated people who will have huge families who will do exactly the same when it is their turn to have families. Sure, the poor don’t use nearly the energy we in the West do, but the truth is is that some of the poor do break out of the cycle and become educated….. and consume as we do. Effectively, the poor will be incubators for future heavy consumers while still maintaining their ever expanding base of poor and uneducated people….
    So the answer has to be population management.

    • jack broughton permalink
      April 30, 2018 12:49 pm

      With the hawks (and Israelis) running USA foreign policy a dramatic reduction in the population of the world is becoming imminent: they have already decimated Iraq and Syria, Iran next?

      • dave permalink
        April 30, 2018 3:40 pm

        “… already decimated Iraq…”

        In the last ten years the population has risen from 31 million to 37 million.

  23. April 30, 2018 5:04 am

    This is the antidote to “Solar & Wind To Replace All Fossil Fuels Within Two Decades”.

    This post looks at the capacity factors and attendant comparative costs of the power that is produced but even then does not account for the unreliability and inability to react to actual demand. It should not be assumed that Weather Dependent Renewable power is useful whenever it arrives.

    Simply not so.

    Even if manmade CO2 causing “Climate Change” was proven to be a real problem it would not be worth the West spending $1.5 trillion a year in failing to solve it.

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/a-dataset-of-eu-weather-dependent-renewable-energy-installations-output-costs-2008-2017/

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 30, 2018 9:54 am

      Interesting and useful. Thanks.

  24. Roy Hartwell permalink
    April 30, 2018 9:51 am

    Renewables will become self-limiting as their energy output will be unable to support the manufacturing requirements to produce them !! Oh. I forgot. The scramble to 100% renewables is only in the West and China/India/Asia will continue burning masses of fossil fuels to supply the virtue-signallers in the west.

  25. Up2snuff permalink
    April 30, 2018 3:26 pm

    Renewables will not supplant oil & gas & coal within two decades because they are becoming cheaper and their output makes fossil fuel burning unnecessary. (Their output will always be inadequate in the face of growing demand, as Roy Hartwell correctly states.)

    The oil (and gas industry dependent on it – or on coal) will be increasingly left in the ground because the oil companies will be unwilling to go to the expense of getting it out of the ground. We will have reached the death of oil without ever reaching peak oil.

    Straight economics will turn out the lights in much of the developed world. Governments then may be forced to offer subsidies to the (hated by some) oil-industry in order to fulfil demand for electricity by industry as well as domestic users.

    • Gamecock permalink
      May 1, 2018 10:47 pm

      ‘Cept electricity and oil aren’t really related.

  26. It doesn't add up... permalink
    April 30, 2018 3:29 pm

    Blakers has considerable form in promoting the idea that Australia can run on 100% renewables with very little storage. What storage he thinks is needed he imagines can be provided at low cost – way below the cost of the new Snowy 2 scheme, claiming there are some 22,000 sites in Australia that could be used.

    http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/

    http://euanmearns.com/australia-energy-storage-and-the-blakers-study/

    The man in a charlatan.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      April 30, 2018 9:22 pm

      Your claim about him may well be very correct. Has Blakers taken into account the emissions created in manufacturing, installing and servicing ‘the storage’?

      No?

      I guessed not.

      Then there is the ‘plastics’ question. How much of a battery’s content comes from oil by-products?

      Governments around the globe have already signalled the end of distilled-oil fuelled cars; they are currently attacking plastics. If some health or environmental scares are created about other oil derived products, such as household cleaners, fertilisers, etc., the oil companies may look at their reserves and say “That’s it, we have to diversify or shut up shop. We cannot make a profit with enough to invest for a future oil & gas business, all our reserves will soon be too costly to extract. ‘Bye!”

      The Law of Unintended Consequences is important reading for every politician and civil servant.

  27. swan101 permalink
    May 2, 2018 8:40 pm

    Reblogged this on UPPER SONACHAN WIND FARM.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: