[kublikhan]

I disagree. Any human activity has an impact on natures balance. Some more, some less. You go for a walk in the woods? You're going to upset some animals. You build a house at the edge of town? You destroy valuable land. You drive your tesla? You create break dust.

Yes. But fossil fuels do far more damage than taking a walk. They are not even in the same league. It is not wrong to try and reduce the amount of damage we are doing to the Earth. And the amount of damage renewables do to the Earth is far less than fossil fuels.

There's a solar farm in my neighborhood. 20 acres of prime farmland was taken out of farming and plastered over with solar panels. Was that priced into the cost of solar?

In terms of land impact, Renewables come out ahead as well:

The problem with renewable energy, so claim its critics, is that it is too diffuse. Solar and wind farms require vast amounts of land to harvest the low-density energy from the sun and wind. In contrast, they point out that power plants, like coal, natural gas, and nuclear, have relatively tiny footprints, requiring hundreds of times less land than renewables for the same power.

This argument has merit but it overlooks two essential points. First, it conveniently ignores the very large land footprint of the mines that produce the fuels for coal and nuclear plants. Second, each acre can only be mined once. After that, the acre is depleted forever and the mining companies must move on to the next acre. In contrast, an acre of solar, wind, hydro, or biomass will continue producing energy, year after year, forever. In other words, an acre is not just an acre.

Beyond acres and kilowatt hours: dual-use and reclamation
Renewables can hold their own against mining fuel on an energy per acre basis but it is the health of that acre where renewables demonstrate the best land footprint. The towers that hold those enormous turbines only require a tiny portion of a wind farm’s total land footprint—the rest can serve other purposes. Increasingly, land in wind farms has become “dual-use,” simultaneously supporting livestock grazing and agriculture. Solar farms, because they are typically more densely packed than wind farms, make dual-use more of a challenge, but pilot projects all over the world are proving that panels can co-exist with grazing and certain kinds of agriculture.

A report by the Appalachian Law Center found the US had spent $5.7 billion over 40 years to reclaim 800,000 acres of land damaged by mining but they also found 6.2 million acres were still awaiting reclamation (this federal fund is set to expire in 2021). Storing the 2 billion tons of coal ash left over from a century of coal power requires 1,100 ash ponds across the US. While the land required for ash is relatively small in terms of acres per GWh, the coal ash contains arsenic, mercury, uranium, and other toxic heavy metals. Reclaiming those acres will cost billions of dollars.

When you put all this together, the environmental impact of mining coal and uranium diminishes many of its benefits in land usage efficiency.

When It Comes To Land Impact, Does Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Coal, Or Natural Gas Have The Smallest Footprint?

Putting a value on those things in $$$ is practically impossible, so let's not even try.

The amount of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than renewables & nuclear. Again, they are not even in the same league.

Summary
All energy sources have negative effects. But they differ enormously in size: as we will see, fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner. From the perspective of both human health and climate change, it matters less whether we transition to nuclear power or renewable energy, and more that we stop relying on fossil fuels.

What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

CO2 Emissions from Different Energy Sources
When looking at CO2 emissions, it is best to look at life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, which reflect all CO2 emissions over the entire lifespan of the technology—from equipment manufacturing and construction to operations and maintenance activities to plant decommissioning. Keep in mind that no CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere during wind-powered electricity generation.

In general, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from renewable sources are considerably lower than emissions from natural gas and coal. Wind energy produces around 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (g CO2/kWh) of electricity generated, compared with about 980 g CO2/kWh for coal and roughly 465 g CO2/kWh for natural gas. That makes coal’s carbon footprint almost 90 times larger than that of wind energy, and the footprint of natural gas more than 40 times larger. Shifting electricity production away from fossil generation sources to renewable sources has a significant impact on lowering CO2 emissions from the power sector.

Impact of Air Pollutants on Public Health
During combustion for fossil-fueled electricity generation, other air pollutants—including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) —are also released into the atmosphere. These gases often react to form particulate matter, smog, ground-level ozone, and acid rain. In turn, these resulting pollutants can cause adverse health effects, including asthma, bronchitis, lower and upper respiratory symptoms, and heart attacks. Air pollution is responsible for a large number of premature deaths relating to these illnesses.

The Bottom Line
When looking at the cost of wind energy versus other technologies, it’s tempting to look at just the cost of running a wind plant or its grid-system value. However, these comparisons do not consider the societal benefits provided by wind and other emissions-free sources of energy, both in terms of fighting climate change and reducing harmful air pollutants. If these external—but real—benefits are part of the equation, wind energy might take off even faster than it is today.

How Wind Can Help Us Breathe Easier

Yet it's certainly ironic that electricity prices creep higher and higher even though WAY cheaper renewables are supplying more and more of it.)

I'm curious. Who or what source exactly said "renewables are WAY cheaper" that you keep quoting over and over? Fossil fuels have always been the cheap and dirty option to get us power. Renewables have been the expensive and difficult choice. Now Solar PV panels and wind turbine costs have been steadily declining and you can pick them up at rates comparable to fossil fuels now, not WAY cheaper. But even that does not include the full package of costs. Renewables are more dispersed compared to fossil fuels so require more transmission infrastructure, which adds costs. Renewables are intermittent so require energy storage, which adds costs. Storage depletes after a few hours so then you need fossil fuel backup, which adds costs. Add all of this up, and the complete package costs of renewables are STILL more expensive than fossil fuels, not WAY cheaper. But we are not switching to renewables because they are quick and easy. We are switching to them because our fossil fueled power sources are doing a lot of damage to mother earth, far more than renewables do.

What I'm wondering is if those renewables can be built and supported in a world powered by renewables. Solar and wind are highest high tech. Requiring modern materials, precision manufacturing, electronics. Many of it was developed for consumer products. Solar and wind directly benefit from large consumer economies. Can renewables power all this to a level needed for its continuation?

I had this discussion before with kub. And of course he's on the optimistic side claiming smooth sailing into a wonderful land ahead of us. Maybe, maybe not. I guess once again, we have to wait and see... unless you have some input?

I said no such thing. As I said above, the whole package costs of renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels. The quicker the transition, the higher these costs are. Do you know what happens if you give an economy a sudden jolt of high energy prices? I can tell you, it is not smooth sailing into a wonderful land. However the alternative is even worse. And even if we ignore all of the damage that fossil fuels are doing to the Earth, the simple fact is fossil fuels are a finite resource. IMHO, it is incredibly stupid to dig up every last lump of coal, pump every last drop of oil, and then shrug our shoulders and say: "Well, we had a good run!" Does it not make more sense to try and transition to an alternative energy system before that happens?

[mousepad]

I disagree. Any human activity has an impact on natures balance. Some more, some less. You go for a walk in the woods? You're going to upset some animals. You build a house at the edge of town? You destroy valuable land. You drive your tesla? You create break dust.

Yes. But fossil fuels do far more damage than taking a walk. They are not even in the same league. It is not wrong to try and reduce the amount of damage we are doing to the Earth. And the amount of damage renewables do to the Earth is far less than fossil fuels.

You're completely missing the point here. The point was that everything we do does impact nature. And that is impossible to assign $$ value to an impact. So don't start to rationalize subsidies as part of a balance sheet.

I my book the damage industrial civilization has done to the earth is beyond a debt that can ever be repaid. Every cell phone you buy should cost 100x more because of the damage done to nature.

There's a solar farm in my neighborhood. 20 acres of prime farmland was taken out of farming and plastered over with solar panels. Was that priced into the cost of solar?

In terms of land impact, Renewables come out ahead as well:

Yes, easy to believe. Again that was not the point. The point was that the land impact is NOT part of the solar balance sheet. If you add external (social/environmental) cost to coal, then do so too with everything else, too. How much in $$$$ is the social cost of having little kids dig out rare earth minerals in afrika? Is that added to the cost of a tesla?

Putting a value on those things in $$$ is practically impossible, so let's not even try.

The amount of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than renewables & nuclear. Again, they are not even in the same league.

Yes, yet they still don't belong on a balance sheet. What a stupid notion only stupid capitalists can come up with. Put $$ amount on some loss of habitat, pay some taxes and all is washed clean.

Add all of this up, and the complete package costs of renewables are STILL more expensive than fossil fuels, not WAY cheaper.

Good to know. That is not what I hear from the "cool guys".
https://www.irena.org/publications/2022 ... ts-in-2021

newly installed renewable power in 2021 had lower costs than the world’s cheapest coal-fired option

Lower cost than the world's cheapest coal!!!!! If that doesn't mean WAY cheaper, I don't know what WAY cheaper means.

But who cares, the all important question remains unanswered. Can renewables power a high energy society providing the tech needed for their own existence.

There's a perfect economic storm and supply chain issues squeezing renewables, right now.
I would have expected the perfect storm to squeeze more expensive coal power plants and driving them out of business while the cheaper renewables boom unstoppably.

Add all of this up, and the complete package costs of renewables are STILL more expensive than fossil fuels, not WAY cheaper.

It's funny how your statement all of a sudden is in line with my sensational click-bait report and the complete opposite of reputable sources claiming "WAY cheaper".

IMHO, it is incredibly stupid to dig up every last lump of coal, pump every last drop of oil,

Of course it is. Who said otherwise?
Ahhh yes, our dear leader, the venerable comrade Sleepy and his cohorts of woke side-kicks:

Despite pausing oil and gas leases on public land, Joe Biden approved nearly 1,200 drilling permits in a mere three months

It's almost as if Sleepy doesn't understand why he was elected. That piece of shit should be hanged for high treason and crimes against nature, humanity and the US.

[kublikhan]

newly installed renewable power in 2021 had lower costs than the world’s cheapest coal-fired option

Lower cost than the world's cheapest coal!!!!! If that doesn't mean WAY cheaper, I don't know what WAY cheaper means.

What "way cheaper"? The difference was in pennies.

I would have expected the perfect storm to squeeze more expensive coal power plants and driving them out of business while the cheaper renewables boom unstoppably.

Why would you expect that? Did you not say that renewables where the highest of the high tech requiring modern materials, precision manufacturing, electronics, etc? If that is so, why would you think digging a lump of coal out of the ground would be the option more heavily impacted by supply chain disruptions?

It's funny how your statement all of a sudden is in line with my sensational click-bait report and the complete opposite of reputable sources claiming "WAY cheaper".

You are the only one who said "Way cheaper". You are having an argument with yourself.

[theluckycountry]

nothing is replacing diesel for the hauling of wind turbine blades from manufacturer to field;

That's the third rail of rebuildable energy systems, no one touches that.
https://imgur.com/gallery/TxVMSwV

Of course you could make the argument, a good argument, that coal fired plants need diesel to bring in their coal on a regular basis, but they never suffered from this.

But so far this year, projects off Britain, the Netherlands and Norway have been delayed or shelved due to rising costs and supply chain constraints while Britain's renewable energy auction this month failed to attract any bids from offshore wind developers, also because of high industry costs.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/analysi ... sts%20said.

Nor of them pulling out enmass due to not being able to provide power as cheap, anywhere as cheap as coal plants. One day we'll run out of coal for all intents and purposes, but windmills made from oil will disappear long before that.

[kublikhan]

Of course you could make the argument, a good argument, that coal fired plants need diesel to bring in their coal on a regular basis, but they never suffered from this.

But so far this year, projects off Britain, the Netherlands and Norway have been delayed or shelved due to rising costs and supply chain constraints while Britain's renewable energy auction this month failed to attract any bids from offshore wind developers, also because of high industry costs.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/analysi ... sts%20said.

Nor of them pulling out enmass due to not being able to provide power as cheap, anywhere as cheap as coal plants. One day we'll run out of coal for all intents and purposes, but windmills made from oil will disappear long before that.

This happens all the time whenever there is a mismatch in expectations between buyers and sellers. People got used to lower wind prices, year after year, and they have come to expect that to continue. Now in a year of high inflation, high material costs, high interest rates, OEMs have to raise prices to stay healthy. But this came as an unwelcome surprise to the buyers who wanted lower prices, not higher. But even with higher prices, it is still cost competitive with fossil fuels. This is not a herald of the coming end of wind power. Indeed, even with these failed auctions, there was still more wind power installed this year than any other year in history. What this is a sign that people have to expect higher prices.

[Plantagenet]

I feel like peak oil is a taboo, as no one talks about it anymore.

?????

Peak oil is in the news all the time.

For instance, the IEA has recently issued several reports calling for the world to reach peak oil to in the next 7 years, and other groups have been issuing similar predictions for years.



Cheers!

[ralfy]

Hyper-acceleration is needed because the global economy in which that transition should be taking place is free market capitalist. That means energy producers and business consumers demand maximization of profits, which means not only should oil production rise considerably, but renewable energy with lower returns, too. On top of that, the transition includes industrialization for most of the world population, something that the richest also want because they earn more from more consumers who consume. The amount of energy needed for transition, industrialization, and maximization of profits will be far higher than what the biosphere can provide.

[Tuike]

For instance, the IEA has recently issued several reports calling for the world to reach peak oil to in the next 7 years, and other groups have been issuing similar predictions for years.

I think there was a mention in television and in a newspaper about the IEA prediction, but I haven't seen any followup in television discussion programs or elsewhere. We don't have much native peak oil experts here to ask for an interview and people are enough upset about inflation and the new goverment coalitions austerity mesaures.

[Peak_Yeast]

Funny how that graph of oil demand era pretty well fits with the predictions of peak oil anyway.

[Plantagenet]

For instance, the IEA has recently issued several reports calling for the world to reach peak oil to in the next 7 years, and other groups have been issuing similar predictions for years.

I think there was a mention in television and in a newspaper about the IEA prediction, but I haven't seen any followup in television discussion programs or elsewhere. We don't have much native peak oil experts here to ask for an interview and people are enough upset about inflation and the new goverment coalitions austerity mesaures.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.


That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Most of the scientific community has been ringing alarm bells over climate change for decades, and a smaller group of scientists in the earth science field also periodically point out that peak oil is also a dangerous problem.

But just about every politician ignores both issues. Sure...they sometimes talk a bit about climate change or energy issues, but politicians mainly care about keeping Business as Usual going, so they either do nothing or do things that are ultimately harmful. And the media these days is mostly a partisan branch of the major political parties, so they aren't going to bring up any issue that might make their favorite politicians look bad.

There just isnt' anybody else out there but scientists who want to discuss these issues, and scientists effectively have no political power and are also notoriously bad communicators.

Cheers!

[ralfy]

I remember them mentioning in 2006 that consumption would reach 115 Mbd by 2015, and that it would easily be met. Instead, it has barely reached 100 Mbd, and likely because the 2008 crash has had long-term effects on the world economy.

Given that, the world likely avoided an economic crash that would have been caused by demand not being met by production by an economic crash caused by financial speculation.

And then there's climate change coupled with ecological damage, leading to, among other things, species die-offs.

It's like Alien vs. Predator vs. Colonial Marine, and the Marine fighting against the other two and himself.

[theluckycountry]

Given that, the world likely avoided an economic crash that would have been caused by demand not being met by production by an economic crash caused by financial speculation.

Yes that GFC crash was very convenient, coming as it did when oil had reached $140. Then just as things were warming up again, Global covid lockdowns! Ban all air travel, domestic and international, ban people in most nations from driving more than a few miles from home, close entire industries down, park the truck fleets. Again, very convenient. Once you get past what the TV talking heads have to say about these earth shattering events you can see a string of dots, leading down the oil depletion curve.

The mathematicians draw the curve smoothly, but in the real world it's a set of steps.

[Carnot]

Mousepad,

After a long break form posting anything, I noted your exchange of views with Kubi and AgentR11.

I have worked for 45 + years in oil. gas and petrochemicals. I do not consider myself andexpert but I am knowledgeable about the production of oil and gas, the processing of oil and gas and the use of oil and gases in petrochemicals. For more than 25 years I have followed peak oil and one day, I do not know when , it will happen. US LTO probably saved the day but it will not last as long as some think, as EROI will see to that. I am all for conserving what remains, of all fossil fuel types because we are going to need everything there is that can be extracted economically and that means it will not be 100 years of resources

From my experience over the years I have witnessed many so called new technologies that are going to transform the world. Most fail. I have evaluated many so called breakthrough technologies and these are usually promoted by academics ( whose tenure is based on papers written) who basically do not have a clue on real costs and markets.I do not believe that carbon emissions are an issue but I do believe that population growth is. I do not see any point in passenger cars with 300 hp available under your right foot. Every renewable project I have looked is a non starter and that includes wind and solar, as well as biofuels, SAF and algae. None will be able to power of economies and sustain them let alone grow the economy. Anyone contemplating wind and solar should look into grid forming sources and grid following sources of electrical power. Then look into the resource requirements and footprint. A CCGT can be built using a fraction of the raw materials and land area of either wind or solar.

Without doubt, wind is the worst. Wind power is inherently intermittent. The practical limit of turbine is size is probably about 5MW, possibly even less. As the the turbine scales up the inputs and problems scale exponentially. Wind is limited by 3 factors

1 Mass
2 Performance
3 Durability

Each is a comprimise. Add more weight and the performance suffers and stress loads increase. Reduce weight and the performance improves , but the durability reduces. Increasing durability requires adding weight.

A wind turbine is an aircraft. Over its supposed design life the a wind turbine will experience about 100 times more stress cycles that a modern jet aircraft.
Consider the pitch change mechanism. An absolute nightmare to lubricate as it is in boundary layer lubrication. Look of the internet for wind turbine blade bearing brinelling. Then there is the leading edge problem - the leading edge of the blade gets pummelled by the weather and wears away causing vibrations. I can go on.

My advice over 45 years, is to not believe what you read, especially from internet sites and consultants. Read up everything you can and do your homework. OilPrice.com is often mooted as a source. Most of what is written is cut and pasted drivel. There are one of two writers who are knowledgeable but most have never even seen an oil rig, or a refinery, or an ethylene steam cracker. I have worked on all three and many more. Never, ever, take what you read at face value from consultants and I mean people like WoodMac, S&P, ICIS, Argus and so on. McKinsey, Roland Berger, Accenture , Ernst and Young should be treated with extreme care.

I have done due diligence studies, process assessments and advised on M&A, and I continue to be amazed on how much utter BS is presented as fact. As Disraeli said, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics".

[mousepad]

Mousepad,
After a long break form posting anything, I noted your exchange of views with Kubi and AgentR11.

I take it that you agree with me?
Or do you agree more with smooth-sailing-kub? As EV sales and GW of renewable installed reach record highs, meaning transition is practically a done deal.

Read up everything you can and do your homework.

Unfortunately I don't have the time, nor the data (and sometimes not the skill and knowledge) to do my homework. I must rely on experts more often than I like. But I have decades of experience as an engineer and I developed some sort of a sixth sense about what is a good solution and what is not.

[kublikhan]

Or do you agree more with smooth-sailing-kub? As EV sales and GW of renewable installed reach record highs, meaning transition is practically a done deal.

I said nothing of the sort. I have said, multiple times, that the 'cheap' price of renewables belies their true costs because of their intermittent nature. Levelized costs do not capture the higher value that dispatchable sources of power provide to the grid. IE, the ability to provide reliable, 24/7 power that wind & solar simply cannot provide. Many renewable proponents ignore this fact. However the EIA cautions against this and reports that FF have benefits not captured by levelized costs:

Actual plant investment decisions consider the specific technological and regional characteristics of a project, which involve many other factors not reflected in LCOE (or LCOS) values. One factor is the projected utilization rate, which depends on the varying amount of electricity required over time and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed. A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Because load must be continuously balanced, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units that use intermittent resources to operate (resource-constrained technologies). We list the LCOE values for dispatchable and resource-constrained technologies separately because they require a careful comparison.

In AEO2022, solar LCOE, on average, is lower than natural gas-fired combined-cycle (CC) LCOE in 2027. However, more CC generating capacity is installed than solar PV between 2025 and 2027. We project more CC capacity to be installed than solar PV capacity because the relative value of adding CC to the system is greater than for solar PV, which LCOE does not capture.

Levelized Costs of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022

NERC also cautioned about the problems of higher penetrations of renewables in grid reliability and the shrinking of operating reserves:

NERC says its assessment highlights reliability, security and resilience risk associated with the “changing generation resource mix.” The addition of wind and solar, along with the continued growth of distributed energy resources and the retirement of conventional generation, “are fundamentally changing how the grid is planned and operated,” according to NERC. And even where system capacity is sufficient, the organization concluded some areas demonstrate potential for inadequate energy to serve demand. The report found reserve margin projections of on-peak capacity in MISO are falling and are projected to be below targets beginning in 2025.

In Texas, NERC’s report concluded the increased penetration of wind “is increasing the risk of tight operating reserves during hours other than the daily peak load hour.” California “could face periods where resources are insufficient for area energy needs,” NERC’s report found. Power outages associated with an August heat wave provide evidence of the challenge “to reliably serve the changing demand profile with the evolving resource mix,” it said.

Rising renewables penetration is a threat to grid reliability in some regions, NERC concludes

[mousepad]

I said nothing of the sort.

I know, I know. But you're so trigger predictable.

[kublikhan]

So you just want to troll and drag down the quality of this site. Mission accomplished.

[ralfy]

Population growth is important for capitalist economies, as maximization of profits is attained only with increasing numbers of workers and consumers.

[careinke]

Population growth is important for capitalist economies, as maximization of profits is attained only with increasing numbers of workers and consumers.

Only if you subscribe to Keynesian Economics.

Peace

[theluckycountry]

Or do you agree more with smooth-sailing-kub? As EV sales and GW of renewable installed reach record highs, meaning transition is practically a done deal.

I said nothing of the sort. I have said, multiple times...

You have said multiple times that you believe in the bright green future, you are totally, "yes it will all work out" It is your mindset.. Your sig, a twist on "the glass is half full" says it all. It doesn't matter to you if the glass is being drunk down and will soon be empty, to your mind it is half full, which implies it's being refilled, not emptied. Practical reality cares nothing for wishful thinking and the corporations back of all this green tech care little for a sustainable future.