[StarvingLion]

Magic wands for making renewables without fossil fuels for sale.
Have shared these videos from the manufacturers themselves before:
All the human-made things in our world have an industrial history. Behind the computer, the T-shirt, the vacuum cleaner is an industrial infrastructure fired by energy (fossil fuels mainly). Each component of our car or refrigerator has an industrial history. Mainly unseen and out of mind, this global industrial infrastructure touches every aspect of our lives. It pervades our daily living from the articles it produces, to its effect on the economy and employment, as well as its effects on the environment.
Solar and wind energy collecting devices also have an industrial history. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable.
This is an essay challenging ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs.
I have provided both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper.
Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own industrial interconnection and history.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/so ... cture.html

sunweb, the Energiewende is about burning wood and palm oil, ...the windmills and solar panels are just for show.

They should call EV's Coal Cars.
and solar panels Coal Panels.

It all runs on coal.

[steam_cannon]

What I don't get is how solar and wind is going to replace plastics?

Good thing we don't need ff's to make fertilizer or run the tractors...

Electricity can be used for producing fertilizers from air for farming and more important is you can mine fossil resources using renewable energy and still use them as chemical feed stocks. A simple example would be an electric train full of coal that doesn't have to be powered by the coal it carries. We have lots of non-fuel grade coal and tar that could in theory make ok chemical feed stocks. Of course with these examples, scale is the big question. Does the technology seem likely to be possible to scale up? Well first it's important to know these technologies exist to be able to make that opinion.

And the reason I like Graeme posts is that they discuss modern technological innovations that could be useful. Sure most things don't scale or aren't in use right now for various reasons, but I feel that's the point of this board. To understand, question a lot and discuss how things really are. I see nothing wrong with Graeme posting something and people disagreeing with it. These are important technological topics. And an article starting with the words "Fossil fuels are finished" sounds like something worth at least an opinion.

basically renewable spam

Ok, that did make me laugh. Though as far as Graeme's posts being spam, well welcome to the internet. Lol

[Newfie]

Steam, the point is that ther is nowhere near enough "renewable" energy to do the things you mention.

A few years ago Spain made a big push for renewables, wind and various kinds of solar. The two guys in charge of the project wrote a book about it. The bottom line was that, when yu figured in the life cycle costs of the basic materials, maintenece, and replacement the result was basically a net zero. IOW, the systems used about as much energy as they produced.

The book is ....Spain's Photovoltaic Revolution

Here is a link to a discussion of the book and some additional commentary by one of the two authors
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-a ... -solar-pv/

Also a few years ago someone here linked to a bunch of analysis that he did on a blog or web site doing similar life cycle analysis. I can't recall who did it or where the web site is. Maybe someone here with better grey cells can help.

[Graeme]

Is This The First European Country To Go 100% Renewable?

Wind power is often criticized for its intermittency: since the wind does not always blow, how can it power a modern industrial economy? One country has proven that wind power can not only provide enough electricity for all of its needs, but even provide excess power for export.

That’s what happened last week in Denmark, when a particularly blustery day caused the country’s wind farms to generate a massive amount of energy. On the evening of Jul. 9, Denmark discovered that its turbines were cranking out 116 percent of the the electricity to meet its needs, and as energy use waned through the night, the figure had soared to 140 percent by 3 a.m. Jul. 10.

Denmark and its neighbors were ready to deal with the excess power. Copenhagen sold 40 percent of the surplus each to neighboring Norway and Germany, and the remaining 20 percent went to Sweden.

oilprice

[Newfie]

Great, now when they can do that 24/7/365 they will be in business....to supplant electric usage.

What about vehicle fuels, heating, manufacturing, etc?

For example, how do you heat concrete kilns?

Sorry f I seem to be poking you Graham, it's just that I feel these articles which cast such a rosy view do tremendous damage to getting folks to understand the issues.

Folks here stuff like the above and think "right on then, no worries, it's all good." Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a way I'm like you, eternally trying to get folks to listen to the truth and understand the situation. Which requires critical systemic analysis and heavy doses of truth.

"Fossil Fuels are Finished - the rest is just detail"

Green washing may as well be paid for by Shell or BP for the effect they have.

[Graeme]

There's plenty of information on this board and Google.

[ROCKMAN]

Of course fossil fuels are finished. Easily proven by the fact that in the last 10 years global consumption for oil has increase 8%, for NG an increase of 19% and coal an increase of 14%. Stats rom the EIA. Yes indeed: fossil fuels are sucking in their last breath. LOL. OK, want to shorten the time frame: in the last 2 months all three have increased. Of course, anyone can cherry pick what ever time frame helps to support their spin.

Choose wisely, grasshopper. LOL.

[Newfie]

There's plenty of information on this board and Google.

That's no excuse to post misleading information.

Of course if you filter that out there is not much left.

[Newfie]

Pstarr, I'm being dull today.

I apologize if I hurt someone or was rude or rough.

I was just trying to speak to the truth.

But your comment on "it's never enough" eluded me.

[Graeme]

Drillers Under Pressure as Low Prices, Broad Uncertainties Put Oil & Gas Industry's Financial Prospects 'In Limbo'

At a climate change conference in Paris last week, Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, had a blunt message for energy companies.

“We see some moves from energy companies in the direction of sustainable development. However, it is not at the level you would like to see,” Mr. Birol, who will be promoted to chief of the IEA in September, told those assembled. “If they think that their businesses are immune to the impacts of climate policy, they are making a strategic mistake.”

Other experts sound a similar note, calling for changes so fast and sweeping that they would be like an “induced implosion.”

“In order to stay below 2 degrees C (36F), or even 3 degress C, we need to have something really disruptive, which I would call an induced implosion of the carbon economy over the next 20-30 years,” Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research and advisor to Pope Francis and the German government, said the next day. “Otherwise we have no chance of avoiding dangerous, perhaps disastrous, climate change.”

“A mixture of many different changes going on – consumption patterns, civil society, political action – will be disruptive to the carbon economy,” Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz added at the conference that day, as he dismissed the notion that voluntary measures could be effective. “The atmosphere is a public good – all want to get the benefits, but no one wants to pay the cost.”

In the realpolitik world of investing and economics, a slowly-emerging awareness of the need to take steps to mitigate climate change seems to be emerging — making fossil fuel investments look not only hazardous to the climate, but also turning long-time blue chip stocks into investments that look uniquely financially risky.

As low prices and high costs have hammered the oil and gas drilling industry, an increasing number of experts and institutions are scrutinizing the industry's short- and long-term viability in unprecedented ways.

desmogblog

[ROCKMAN]

"Put Oil & Gas Industry's Financial Prospects In Limbo". Obviously these folks weren't raised as good Catholics as the Rockman was since they haven't a clue to the difference between limbo and burning in the fires of hell. Having now going thru 3 financial collapses of the oil patch the Rockman understands first hand the difference in the room temperature. LOL.

[StarvingLion]

Yeah, the Oil&Gas Industry does great as long as it can export its losses like every other subsidy driven "enterprise".

Got a problem meeting customer demand? Drill more wells and operate in the red. Can nuclear industry. Can coal industry. Can living standards. Force utilities to burn wood...to compensate for operating in the red.

Thats why there is a mad scramble to privatize energy. The O&G biz is going under. aka nationalized.

And to Rockhead, nothing has changed. LOL.

[Graeme]

5 Countries That Prove the World Doesn’t Need Fossil Fuels

A decade ago, the renewable energy movement faced an uphill battle. Today, environmentally-minded nations of the world increasingly embrace alternative energy sources. These countries now lead the way toward a future free of petroleum and dirty energy. In the process, they save significant amounts of money on national energy costs while preserving and protecting the world’s natural resources.

Despite powerful corporate disinformation campaigns meant to convince populations that renewable energy is not a viable way to satisfy the needs of global industry, the following five nations aren’t just subsisting on renewable energy—they are thriving on it.

Costa Rica

Since the start of 2015, Costa Rica has gone 100% green. This move away from fossil fuels will help ensure that lush jungles and pristine beaches remain intact. The comprehensive shift will help Costa Ricans not only save their natural resources, but ensure that the country continues to benefit from its very profitable eco-tourism industry, though they would be wise to be vigilant of the effects of tourism on local ecosystems.

One of Costa Rica’s renewable efforts involves utilizing its own plentiful rainfall to power their growing hydroelectric infrastructure. Incredibly, the small country has the second best electric infrastructure in Latin America. Yet, it has not put all its eggs in one basket—Costa Rica is also generating power from geothermal sources, wind, biomass and solar energy products.

Denmark

themindunleashed

[Outcast_Searcher]

Beside that the example of Costa Rica is pure BS. The Costa Ricans drive ICE's not EV's. Where Graeme, pray tell, do you find this crap?

Excellent point, I think.

Well Pstarr, being curious, I chased the links a bit (because I tire of the far-less-than-objective stream of "news" from green sites like the stuff Graeme frequently posts. It's great if you like cheerleading and gross exaggeration. Terrible if you want meaningful facts, and not hyperbole.)

First the "renewable efforts" link in the article under Costa Rica takes the reader to the "greener ideal" site.

http://www.greenerideal.com/alternative ... sil-fuels/

(That article originally called Cost Rica an island, which was corrected after a reader pointed out that it's not. So much for in-depth reporting.)

The "greener ideal" Costa Rica propoganda does point out that the discussion is about the electric grid -- so apparently a country could burn all the fossil fuels on the planet AND be "100% green".

The link from the "greener ideal" article for "more details" takes us to sciencealert.com.

http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica- ... or-75-days

So here we learn that the definition of "100%" green is really managing to meet "100% of its demand power for 75 straight days". And of course, backslapping accolades all around. And they also point out this is thanks to heavy rains at 4 hydroelectric facilities, allowing for an ANOMOLY -- more hydroelectric power than usual.

This is based on a press release link from the Costa Rican Electricity Institute.

http://www.grupoice.com/wps/portal/gice ... ap3AflVikp

Which is apparently in Spanish, so I stopped looking.

...

Now, don't get me wrong. If the article had been titled something along the lines of "Unusually Heavy Rainfall allows Costa Rica to Power its Grid for 75 days via 100% Renewable Energy", and explained this in context and lauded THAT achievement -- I would have NO problem with this.

The problem is the gross distortion field -- even worse than the greens complain about the FF industry doing, pretty much constantly. (Sorry, hypocrisy is one of my pet peeves. Especially when it comes from a group trumpeting that it is the "good guys").

[ROCKMAN]

A little more detail...in English:

"This month, Costa Rica’s state-run electricity company announced that the country had gone 75 days using only renewable resources for electricity. Costa Ricans are the first in the world to power their country for so long without the use of fossil fuels, {while trying to put matters into perspective they still get this wrong: they did not go "so long without the use of fossil fuel"...they were still consuming 16 million bbls of oil per year} and the record-breaking achievement was quickly picked up by news agencies all over the world. Costa Rican residents have certainly benefited from the clean energy, with electricity prices set to tumble between 7% and 15% in April. But despite the world’s congratulatory backslaps for the renowned green country, its clean energy production is not likely to last at this scale, nor is it a model that would work in many other parts of the world.

Costa Rica gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric plants and a recent period of unusually heavy rain allowed the country to reach the milestone. This clean power is bolstered by geothermic energy from the country’s volcanoes and a small amount of wind and solar power. Most years, these sources allow Costa Rica to generate approximately 90% of its electricity without burning fossil fuel. The downside to hydropower is that it requires consistent rainfall. Though the dams in Costa Rica are now full, just months ago the country was suffering one of the worst droughts in its history. This forced Costa Rican utility companies to burn fuel to generate power, releasing greenhouse gases and causing rate rises. This unpredictability in rain patterns isn’t unique to Costa Rica and is considered to be one of the primary effects of climate change. Ironically, this means that the bulging reservoirs that gave Costa Rica its green energy surge are likely to be attributable, at least partially, to climate change. And while there is plenty of clean power today, it could just as easily be gone tomorrow.

Even if Costa Rica were able to sustain 100% clean electricity production, the country still relies on petroleum for transportation, and emissions from this sector are the largest hurdle the country faces in reaching its carbon neutrality goal. The environment ministry reports that fuel burned by cars, buses and trains accounted for almost 70% of the country’s carbon emissions in 2014. According to customs there are only 200 or so hybrid cars in Costa Rica to take advantage of the energy produced by renewables on the grid. The fact that even a country like Costa Rica, which has made major investments to produce clean energy, still struggles with these obstacles, shows just how difficult it would be for larger, more industrialized nations to follow in its footsteps. With a population under 5 million and no major industry {NO MAJOR INDUSTRY}, Costa Rica uses much less power than most developed countries, and its geography of tightly packed volcanoes, rivers and mountains is more suited to producing clean power than most. Though small, Costa Rica is able to produce enough energy to power itself while leaving much of its wilderness intact.

To tap into all of the natural resources in the rest of the world would require environmental loss of a different kind, by altering rivers, displacing people and animals, and destroying vegetation. Solar and nuclear power offer other alternatives for clean energy but need more research and investment to make them cost-effective and safe. Even if it were possible to power the world’s largest countries with renewable energy, the destruction required would be unfathomable with only the current technologies.
These limitations, along with a lack of political will, are what has meant the world relied on fossil fuels for almost 90% of its energy since 1999. As admirable as Costa Rica’s feats in energy production may be, its model is not realistic for the world’s largest energy consumers."

[Graeme]

I prefer the quote from the original post about CR. Besides our choice is stark. Either fossil fuels die or we do! The Pope is right:

"If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us"

Unless the global community strikes an effective deal to rein in its carbon emissions, unchecked climate change could usher in a hellish world of lethal heat, soaring food prices, and the failure of even wealthy states.

That's the grim conclusion of a new report commissioned by the British Foreign Office.

According to Sir David King, the UK's climate change envoy, the threat posed by cataclysmic global warming must be considered on par with that posed by nuclear war:

"In the future, climatic conditions could exceed potentially lethal limits of heat stress even in the shade. A plausible worst-case scenario could produce unprecedented food price spikes. The risks of state failure could affect many countries simultaneously, even threatening those that are currently considered stable. The expansion of ungoverned territories would increase the risks of terrorism."


In the words of Pope Francis, "if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us."

huffingtonpost

[C8]

I prefer the quote from the original post about CR. Besides our choice is stark. Either fossil fuels die or we do! The Pope is right:

Then the Pope should be pushing birth control 24/7 as many of the most desperate people today are in massively overpopulated Catholic nations- but that would lead to fewer Catholics and the power of the Church would weaken! Naw, can't do that! Gotta keep 'em reproducing, gotta keep them from education, gotta keep them from thinking for themselves- follow the Church, listen to your Holy Father! This is a war of babies and we must win, that takes priority over climate change!

And before someone trots out the tired "its not the number of people its consumption levels" argument- well, guess what! That conspicuous consumption is what provides jobs for billions. if everybody consumes less we have runaway poverty and killings. Plus "the people" will just keep having more babies until every inch of the planet is covered. You can't say birth control is a sin today but it isn't a sin tomorrow- doesn't work like that. Religion -> overpopulation -> holy war.

The Pope is not on the side of environmentalists- he has you snookered on that one.