Skip to content

Renewable Energy’s Inconvenient Truth

October 28, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Ian.mpp

 

A detailed critique of renewable energy in OilPrice.com:

 

 

 image

The energy needs of the world’s economy seem to be easy to model. Energy consumption is measured in a variety of different ways including kilowatt-hours, barrels of oil equivalent, British thermal units, kilocalories and joules. Two types of energy are equivalent if they produce the same number of units of energy, right?

For example, xkcd’s modeler Randall Munroe explains the benefit of renewable energy in this video. He tells us that based on his model, solar, if scaled up to ridiculous levels, can provide enough renewable energy for ourselves and a half-dozen of our neighbors. Wind, if scaled up to absurd levels, can provide enough renewable energy for ourselves and a dozen of our neighbors.

There is a major catch to this analysis, however. The kinds of energy produced by wind and solar are not the kinds of energy that the economy needs. Wind and solar produce intermittent electricity available only at specific times and places. What the world economy needs is a variety of different energy types that match the energy requirements of the many devices in place in the world today. This energy needs to be transported to the right place and saved for the right time of day and the right time of year. There may even be a need to store this energy from year-to-year, because of possible droughts.

I think of the situation as being analogous to researchers deciding that it would be helpful or more efficient if humans could change their diets to 100 percent grass in the next 20 years. Grass is a form of energy product, but it is not the energy product that humans normally consume. It doesn’t seem to be toxic to humans in small quantities. It seems to grow quite well. Switching to the use of grass for food would seem to be beneficial from a CO2 perspective. The fact that humans have not evolved to eat grass is similar to the fact that the manufacturing and transport sectors of today’s economy have not developed around the use of intermittent electricity from wind and solar.

Substituting Grass for Food Might “Work,” but It Would Require Whole New Systems

If we consider other species, we find that animals with four stomachs can, in fact, live quite well on a diet of grass. These animals often have teeth that grow continuously because the silica in grass tends to wear down their teeth. If we could just get around these little details, we might be able to make the change. We would probably need to grow extra stomachs and add continuously growing teeth. Other adjustments might also be needed, such as a smaller brain. This would especially be the case if a grass-only diet is inadequate to support today’s brain growth and activity.

The problem with nearly all energy analyses today is that they use narrow boundaries. They look at only a small piece of the problem–generally the cost (or “energy cost”) of the devices themselves–and assume that this is the only cost involved in a change. In fact, researchers need to recognize that whole new systems may be required, analogous to the extra stomachs and ever-growing teeth. The issue is sometimes described as the need to have “wide boundaries” in analyses.

If the xkcd analysis netted out the indirect energy costs of the system, including energy related to all of the newly required systems, the results of the analysis would likely change considerably. The combined ability of wind and solar to power both one’s own home and those of a dozen and a half neighbors would likely disappear. Way too much of the output of the renewable system would be used to make the equivalent of extra stomachs and ever-growing teeth for the system to work. The world economy might not work as in the past, either, if the equivalent of the brain needs to be smaller.

 

Full article here.

 

Normally this is all so obvious, it should not need saying. Unfortunately so much of our media have become so beguiled by renewable energy, that they have forgotten to ask the obvious questions.

15 Comments
  1. Joe Public permalink
    October 28, 2019 11:22 am

    “Two types of energy are equivalent if they produce the same number of units of energy, right?”

    That’s how the floggers of “100% renewables-generated” electricity tariffs mislead the gullible.

  2. October 28, 2019 11:29 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

  3. richardw permalink
    October 28, 2019 11:52 am

    One clear economic consequence of intermittent energy supply is poor asset utilisation. That is why steady baseload supply is so important – to keep the machines running all the time. It is yet another cost that is typically not taken into account when looking at the viability of intermittent power.

  4. Pancho Plail permalink
    October 28, 2019 12:15 pm

    Grass, which needs to be consumed pretty much continuously over a lengthy period to provide life-giving energy can be processed relatively easily into a more concentrated form by cows, the eating of which humans have evolved to benefit from. This process also has the beneficial side effect of feeding its own foodstuff, so is to a degree self-sustaining.
    With renewables, whilst the source is renewable, the means of production is not. Significant energy is needed to create the producers (solar panels, wind farms) and the devices needed to “levelise” the energy flow, their performance degrades over time and further energy is required to dispose of and replace them.
    Not exactly the sustainable nirvana we are promised.

  5. Gerry, England permalink
    October 28, 2019 1:43 pm

    ‘Unfortunately so much of our media have become so beguiled by renewable energy, that they have forgotten to ask the obvious questions.’

    It is not just with regard to renewable energy that are media are failing but everywhere you look. Politicians are given a free pass on every subject by a fawning ignorant media. We not only need a new system of government but a new media too to solve our problems.

  6. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 28, 2019 1:53 pm

    Vegans have smaller brains, or at least ones that don’t function properly. An interesting insight.

  7. B Dussan permalink
    October 28, 2019 3:32 pm

    It appears that the author sees the use of solar/wind/hydro as a means to stop/substantially reduce CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels. However, in my opinion although CO2 is not a pollutant, burning, and industrial uses, of fossil fuels do emit toxic pollutants which must at least be minimized for the sake of all living matter on earth. To me, it appears that the judicious generation of electricity by solar/wind hydro backed up by natural gas and oil (sorry, no coal) fired power plants will enable us humans to minimize the burning of fossil fuels, and satisfy our needs for electricity.
    It is noted that the need for power grids is a one time cost to be added for the generation of solar/wind/hydro power.
    I do agree that battery backup can be quite expensive and somewhat impractical, also on account of the fact that batteries most probably would have to be replaced every 5-10 years.

    • George Shaw permalink
      October 30, 2019 9:02 pm

      “batteries most probably would have to be replaced every 5-10 years”
      no, not really, at ten years old if treated well there might be 10% reduction in storage capacity which continues to be lost over the next ten years. But still, lets imagine by 15 years you need a new battery pack. prices are tumbling. the minerals in a battery are valuable and the manufacturers are eager to have them back to be recycled.

      for me, a key point is that oil is far too valuable to be burned! we need it as a feed stock in the chemical industry to make plastics, fertilisers, coatings/paint etc etc.

  8. mike stoddart permalink
    October 28, 2019 7:20 pm

    The answer is to genetically engineer a half-sized human (1/8 volume) .This would solve the problem of food supply, housing, transport etc etc.
    As far as I know, there is no evidence that little people have less fulfilling lives than giant 6’6″ second rows.
    And it would help to address the problem of damaging collisions in modern rugby.

    • saparonia permalink
      October 30, 2019 9:44 am

      In the film Downsizing the little people had to climb down a hole

  9. October 29, 2019 1:14 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  10. October 30, 2019 8:56 pm

    I’ll just leave this link here for you to walk around it and kick the tyres on it…
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/uk-renewables-out-generate-fossil-fuels-for-an-entire-quarter/

  11. October 30, 2019 11:03 pm

    It still kicks me. After all this time there are still people who do not understand the difference between “on-demand energy” and “interruptible energy”. And I don’t talk about average Joe or Jane. I talk about so-called energy professionals. They don’t understand (or at least they pretend to) that a MWh produced at the wrong place or time or both is worthless. As a kid I have been into fairy tales like all other kinds but compared to the stories we get from the renewable people the brothers Grimm were bone dry realists.

  12. swan101 permalink
    October 31, 2019 8:57 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE and commented:
    Excellent data………..

  13. Robert Purtell permalink
    November 5, 2019 8:03 pm

    We need to add Nuclear to the Energy mix.
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors were developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1960s. Data was published on the Berkeley Nuclear Engineering web site.
    Now the Chinese Academy of Sciences has 100 Scientists working to Commercialize by 2027. Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang supports the USA spending $50B on this technology

Comments are closed.