Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

[Crick]

That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

He was talking about the Severn Bay project. It's not real. There is no dam. They are exploring ideas of how they can harness power there from an environmentally friendly method. And that is what scares him. It was not one even of UK top ten sites when the idea was being brought up to build tidal power sites potentially there and the idea was killed off almost a decade ago! lol.

Jeez if that's his "sources", wow, no wonder he never was able to respond to me with any factual data.


The only actual real life, non-fairy tale major environmental damage from energy capturing in the "Sensitive Severn estuary" thus far has been the 1991 Severn oil spill where an oil pipeline ruptured killing tens of thousands of seabirds, destroying their nesting area's and feeding area's, and polluting the estuary.



It's like the wave ones. "I saw the picture, and don't think we should even test it to see how it actually performs because the picture looks like it could hurt the environment"...
This:

is a full time job now.

Like you say "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". Imagine where we'd be if that's what everyone did. "well I like this horseless carriage idea, but we just don't have the infrastructure to fuel them, so lets just keep riding horses".

1.3 million gallons of oil is spilled per year. And we can't stop that. We've been unable to drop that number. We have a spill in the Gulf of Mexico that's been dumping millions of gallons of oil for over 15 years killing off life there... And we can't stop it. We haven't been able to stop killing off the ocean with oil. But you are scared to attempt to study another energy source that could be safer?


But glad he wants to protect the environment. So he definitely has to be against Coal. I mean we have
Acid Mine Drainage, Air pollution from the plants, air pollution from the mines, CO2 emissions, Air pollution from coal during the transport, air pollution from the vehicles transporting coal, Coal fires, (40 tons of mercury goes into atmosphere every year from them, largest source of mercury releasing in US… But I’m sure we will hear mercury is healthy now too lol), coal combustion waste, coal sludge, flooding, forest destruction, greenhouse gasses from mining, degradation of groundwater, radical disturbance of 8.4 million acres of farm/rangeland and forests, heavy metals released in mining/burning (lead, antimony, cadmium, arsenic and even radioactive isotopes), methane releasing, subsidence, sulfur dioxide, thermal pollution, water pollution and heavy water consumption.

If this guy cares so much about smaller environmental worries he must be at the front of the line to get coal shut down. Or just have hypocrite as his middle name.

You never answered my questions about that Oregon 71% renewable misleading factoid you bought off on. Would be nice to know whether you were AWARE of why that was dishonest or whether you bought a load of hype..

Things that sound swell when IDEALISTS are pitching them, often turn out to be big disappointments.. Because HYPE is common ANYWHERE people are trying to sell ideas.. But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.. And Barrage Tidal projects like the one proposed at Severn is a perfect example of riding a wave of idiotic naive HOPE to an AWFUL environmental plan.. And it's not like you can DISMISS Barrage Tidal as an Enviro threat because there are at LEAST 3 or 4 ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATIONS that HAVE been built..

And all the enviro considerations got waived in those cases because Leftist greenWads BLESSED and SANCTIFIED the effort and convinced politicians they would be doing "gawds work" in saving the planet by using a phony emergency of GWarming to "save the planet"...

 

[SandSquid]

That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.

Well said. No mining coal costs. No transporting coal costs. No prepping coal costs. Of course then the others costs that remain will take a bigger piece of the pie.


I still can't believe that idiot was trying to pass off a long dead idea posed about tidal energy in one place as an existing dam. Wow he went off the deep end for sure.

 

[Crick]

But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.

Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?

 

[SandSquid]

But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.

Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?

Haha, wait a second Crick....

So he specifically mentioned the Severn Barrage idea, where they vetted the idea and decided not to go forward with it in that area and didn't push it out as an example of them actually pushing it out?

Does he really not realize THERE IS NO BARRAGE THERE???? That during the vetting process before handing out a contract to build it, they determined they couldn't solve the issues in that location for that idea?

Like they literally did a feasability study of ten different ideas and then axed the program.

Wow, he seems to be living in a fantasy world there. As entertaining as his stories sound, yeah nothing good comes from being that dumb.

 

[danielpalos]

Published on February 27, 2019
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

written by Michael Shellenberger

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette
Mod Edit -- Moved link to article from later post to where it belongs..

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.


France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.

 

[skookerasbil]

But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.

Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?

You mean the Idiot-in-Chief who has climate skeptics on his climate change panel!

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

but it won't be inexpensive.

technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.

Germans are already paying three times what Americans are paying for electricity and they're not even close to 100%...costs to end use consumers from households to Business is a big issue
Spain was a complete disaster

 

[flacaltenn]

But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.

Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?

Haha, wait a second Crick....

So he specifically mentioned the Severn Barrage idea, where they vetted the idea and decided not to go forward with it in that area and didn't push it out as an example of them actually pushing it out?

Does he really not realize THERE IS NO BARRAGE THERE???? That during the vetting process before handing out a contract to build it, they determined they couldn't solve the issues in that location for that idea?

Like they literally did a feasability study of ten different ideas and then axed the program.

Wow, he seems to be living in a fantasy world there. As entertaining as his stories sound, yeah nothing good comes from being that dumb.

Just told you a few posts back --- this VERY bad enviro idea EXISTS TODAY in many places.. I used Severn as the example because it's gotten the most environmentalist attention.... Bad ideas are bad ideas...

You ever figure out why claiming Oregon runs on 71% renewables is misleading as hell to folks not "following up on details" ??????

Or the dozens of times I've look into ANY PLACE or town or state being powered 100% by renewables. I've got like 20 pieces of that propagation clipped.. And when you investigate, you'll find that its blatantly false OR that the event lasted for 3.1 hours one day or for maybe 2 days in a row...

BTW --- Did you ACTUALLY READ the Opening Post and the testimonial from the ARDENT ENVIRONMENTALIST who spent half his life punked by the propaganda and hype about renewables and "alternatives".... That's a lot like me.. But it only took 5 or 6 years to figure out the truth because my career has been in science and engineering...

You SHOULD definitely read and comment on the actual material that STARTED this discussion...

 

[Crick]

Germany is very close to eliminating its last coal fired plant. The last 84 coal fired plants will be closed over the next 19 years. Renewable overtook coal last year as the largest single source of power. Forty percent of German power is produced by renewable sources.

Renewables overtake coal as Germany's main energy source | Reuters
Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

 

[danielpalos]

but it won't be inexpensive.

technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.

Germans are already paying three times what Americans are paying for electricity and they're not even close to 100%...costs to end use consumers from households to Business is a big issue
Spain was a complete disaster

our interstate freeway system didn't happen overnight, either.

 

[flacaltenn]

Germany is very close to eliminating its last coal fired plant. The last 84 coal fired plants will be closed over the next 19 years. Renewable overtook coal last year as the largest single source of power. Forty percent of German power is produced by renewable sources.

Renewables overtake coal as Germany's main energy source | Reuters
Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy

Yeah.. And what's not highlighted is that when their overabundant wind fantasies hit peak production about 40 days a year, the coal plants are STILL up and fired.. Because they can't turn them on/off like switches and wind may disappear in literally minutes.. So actually, much of that flaky wind production volume is dumped into the ground or exported on a special Euro network for flaky renewables...

They ADMIT they are near the safe peak of wind/solar.. And special subsidies are being CUT to build more. As Germany builds more nat gas plants and communes with Putin to get INCREASED nat gas delivery..

Any country stupid enough to vow to abolish BOTH it's coal and nuclear plants by 2030 is gonna eventually get people killed...

 

[flacaltenn]

That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.

Average wind turbine life is about 20 years. They lose effectiveness at about 10 or 12. Same for a solar panel.. Coal and nuclear plants have 60 or 70 year lifespans.. These sketchy sources of wind/solar barely recoup their plant construction costs at that rate..

And having constant maintenance of HIGH salaried workers to climb 80 or 100ft up and replace rotors or hubs or other maintenance is more expensive than fuel... If you look at the books on wind field production, at any given time, about 10 to 25% of the rotors are not in service...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Published on February 27, 2019
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

written by Michael Shellenberger

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette
Mod Edit -- Moved link to article from later post to where it belongs..

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.


France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

It's true, green energy has low productivity compared to fossil fuels.

 

[flacaltenn]

That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills.

The report concludes that a wind turbine will typically generate more than twice as much electricity in its first year than when it is 15 years old.

The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

So you pay for a 100MW wind turbine that at BEST produces an average of 30MW over a year's time.. And THEN in 12 or 15 years -- it's producing 11% of what you paid for after ginormous lifespan maintenance costs??? YOU need to get yourself some wind stock... That's a helluva deal ain't it???

And while you're investing, go buy a fancy boat...

 

[skookerasbil]

Renewables are ghey....still so fringe its laughable!

 

[Billo_Really]

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

It's true, green energy has low productivity compared to fossil fuels.

Prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

solar windows can generate more energy;

we should be upgrading infrastructure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

It's true, green energy has low productivity compared to fossil fuels.

Prove it.

How many jobs do you think are provided by green energy?

 

[Billo_Really]

How many jobs do you think are provided by green energy?

Well, according to Fortune...

"...sustainability now collectively represents four to four and a half million jobs in the U.S., up from 3.4 million in 2011."
​

According to Forbes...

"More than half a million jobs around the world were created in the renewable energy sector in 2017 , bringing the total number of people employed in the sector to more than 10 million for the first time."
​

Back to you...