Skip to main content

View Diary: 100/100/100: Hot renewable energy news (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If renewable energy was really this great... (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel
    Hidden by:
    wilderness voice

    ...50 years of cheering for it would have made it a significant source of energy.

    Don't even talk about the Danish fraud, by the way.   They are still offering new oil and gas leases off the coast.

    If they were serious, they wouldn't have an oil and gas page on their Energy Agency website.

    I am sick to death of this insipid "by 2050" talk.   Do you plan to be alive in 2050, and how old will you be?

    This kind of talk - Amory Lovins did really, really, really delusional "by 2000" talk in his awful high school term paper (worthy maybe of a C, since it contained almost no references) that was published in Foreign Affairs in 1976 - has been going on for decade after decade.     Have you read that Lovins paper recently to see how many of the "by 2000" predictions actually came true?

    I have.

    I am one of the future generations who is suffering for his blitheringly stupid soothsaying in 1976.

    Is this something we should repeat for the next generation?

    They, and not the "by 2050" people will live with the responsibility for this denialist approach.

    So called "renewable energy" is an expensive failure.   It took money out of a lot more worthy programs.    With the 100s of billions of Euros, dollars, yen, and yuan spent on the renewable energy chimera, we could have built 10 to 20 nuclear plants and easily have outstripped, by a factor of probably at least one order of magnitude, the energy output of the entire planetary energy output of solar, wind, geothermal, blah, blah, blah...

    The real reason that climate change is a catastrophe is that no one - and I mean the left as well as the right - ever took it seriously.

    •  Sigh ... (5+ / 0-)

      1.  Do note that "oil producing", with links to a serious discussion of their oil/natural gas production, is the modifier of "Denmark". Yes ... serious hypocrisy challenge.

      2.  Nuclear is there on Saudi Arabia.  I don't here -- or elsewhere - take an advocacy position against nuclear power. Not sure that the advocacy against renewables is the best path forward for nuclear power advocates.

      3.  Several of these timelines are far from 2050 ...

      4.  At what point does renewable electricity generation get to count as a meaningful number to you?  

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The planet uses 520 exajoules of energy. (0+ / 0-)

        That's the latest figure.

        The production called "renewable energy" - this after 50 years of cheering - is given for 2010 by the Energy Information Agency for the entire planet.

        Here are the figures for renewable electricity, the stuff that wind and solar are supposed to produce to "save us" from climate change, again, after 100's of billions of dollars, euros, yen, yuan , pesos and whatever:

        "Renewable electricity (total):   All "renewable" electricity generation: 4,154.344 billion kwh

        That converts to 15.0 exajoules.   Impressive?   Maybe, until you look a little deeper and see where all this grand so called "renewable" energy is coming from.

        Let's look at the EIA figures for solar energy, that money pit that takes money out of poverty programs, health care, education and a whole bunch of other stuff, that money pit that sucked 80 billion euros out of, for just one instance, the Spanish banks and government:   Solar:  31.221 billion kwh.

        This translates to 0.122 exajoules.   Put in even more graphic and readily comprehensible terms given that there are 31,557,600 seconds in a sideral year, this translates to average continuous power of 3,156 MW at 100% capacity utilization, the capacity utilization figure being one that solar energy can not even theoretically reach, given the existence of something called "night."   The actual figures for solar capacity utilization are more like 10% - and they're all backed up, 100% by gas, the waste of which is dumped in the atmosphere.

        Now, is your contention that Spain couldn't have built three more reactors for 80 billion Euros, reactors that would not, by the way, require gas back up to operate?   Mind you, these figures are for the total output of all the world's solar installations, not just those of Spain.

        So many the "wind miracle" is better, no?   I mean something has to justify that huge environmental disaster in the Batou lanthanide mines, no?

        Let's look:  

         Wind:  341.532 billion kwh.

        That's 1.22 exajoules, again after 50 years of cheering.

        So where's the rest of the renewable energy coming from?

        Well, as has been the case for many decades, the world's largest source of so called "renewable energy" is none other than hydroelectricity, that wonderful form of energy that killed 200,000 people in a single night at Banqiao, not that this fact has served to dissuade one anti-nuke from obsessing over the possibility that someday, someone might actually die from radiation from a 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami from striking and destroying three nuclear plants.

        Here's the figures:  Hydro:  3,402.30 billion kwh.

        That's 12.2 exajoules or 81% of all renewable energy.

        Excuse me for raining on your wild eyed optimism, but I don't think there are very many more free rivers in the world that we can destroy with dams.    I also am not sanguine about the survival of the glaciers that power these things.

        Are you here to tell me that the glaciers on the Himalayan plateau are safe, and we don't have to worry a whit about the sustainability of the wonderful Three Gorges dam?

        Get real.

        Now, I don't think that climate change will be addressed, as I've made clear many times.   There's too much denial right and left.    The denial on the left is involved in the insipid cheering for so called "renewable energy."

        It.  Doesn't.  Work.   On scale at least.

        All the little shits in the world who want to fling troll rates and insipid taunts on a backwater website like this one will not make one bit of difference about the outcome.    Neither will dumb anti-nukes carrying on stupidly about a subject he knows nothing about, "breeder reactors."

        I'm used to this crap of course, but only because I'm used to telling the truth as I see it, and the world is full of people who hate the truth, and not all of said haters are Jim Inhofe types.   We have the "renewables will save us" types as well.

        Neither did - note the use of the past tense - all the rhetoric about whirlygigs and glass sheets coated with toxic metals make any difference.

        Like I said - and let's be clear that for some 30 years maybe I was guilty of cheering for this stuff until its failure became too obvious to escape - all it did was to suck money

        This year will certainly come in as one of the tenth worst - maybe even one of the five worst - years recorded at Mauna Loa for carbon dioxide concentration increases.   The first nine months of this year averaged a 2.20 ppm increase year to year, the period from April 2011 to April 2012 represented the second worst increase in recorded history.

        I know you hate that, but it's a fact.

        So we're fifty years into the "renewables will save us" experiment.    I hope I answered your question, but when do you answer mine?   How many more hundreds of billions of euros, dollars, yen and yuan must be thrown down this rabbit hole before you give up?

        Never mind, it doesn't matter.   We're cooked.    You have happy face talk about 2050.   I'm not convinced entirely that there will be a world in 2050, or if there is, that it will be one we'd recognize.

        Experiments often do not have the outcome that we wished they'd had.   Unfortunately what was bet on the grand "renewable energy" experiment, was the planetary atmosphere.

        We lost.

        Enjoy the weekend.
        .

    •  Breeder reactors are a failure...everywhere. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, Calamity Jean
    •  HR for being a dick and a liar (0+ / 0-)
      So called "renewable energy" is an expensive failure.  
       The above diary shows this statement to be a lie.
      •  Well ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar

        NNadir brings a strong passion to the table that can upset many.  But he brings to the discussion knowledge and thinking that has serious value -- even if angered, frustrated, annoyed, etc.

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:42:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I applaud your tolerance and even temper (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          That said, let us consider the fact the nation of Germany has for the first half of this year supplied 26% of their electric needs with  renewables, and the southernmost point of Germany lies a bit north of Fargo, ND.  Consider also that an area equal to two Nellis Air Force bases. if devoted to solar power, would have a generating capacity equal to the entire existing US nameplate capacity (not that we would want to put it all in one place).  So renewable generation is clearly not a failure; what is lacking is the political will.

          Why are we lacking in political will? Because the voting public has been relentlessly propagandized by the ReThugs and their enablers.  Viewed in this light Nadir's lies are part of the problem. If he provided accurate information that would be one thing, but that is not the case.  And c'mon: Amory Lovins' high school term paper?? Talk about a straw man....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site