[Newfie]

I agree there is much to despair about.

I am not so sure about your prediction of how fast things will collapse. It is possible, but unlikely.

I do have the sense we are at some sort of peak and are getting glimpses of the downside.

[Newfie]

From a practical view point we live on about 1.5kw/day from soar and wind. This is living on our sailboat in an ideal climate using very few modern conveniences and cooking with kerosene. This is occasionally supplemented with a generator running gas when there are extended rainy days and low wind.

Average American electricity use is about 30kw and that does not include gas/oil heat.

[theluckycountry]

Fossil fuels are the subsidy. The modern world, including high-tech renewables, and 6 billion+ people wouldn't be around today without it.

Bullseye alright. So few people get that. They think we have cars and smart phones because we all suddenly got Smart after after thousands of years grubbing in the dirt.

[theluckycountry]

If your 'renewable' system does not create enough energy surplus to do so the whole system starts decaying and falling apart pretty quickly.

[diemos]

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/

[ROCKMAN]

Somewhat good news in the Houston area: a new high school (Katy area) can now run 100% solar on sunny days. Obvious little demand at night when there are no classes. And still has power grid for back up. Did not report cost or payout time. Just worked the cost into the construction budget. But a fairly wealthy area: built an $80 million football stadium several years ago so obvious solar cost was no problem: looked like it covers about 1 acre at most.

[AdamB]

I agree there is much to despair about.

Always has been. Probably always will be. Smoke'im while you got'im.

I do have the sense we are at some sort of peak and are getting glimpses of the downside.

Yup. I remember folks saying the same thing way back during the peak oil days. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sort of like groundhog day in peakerville?

[Tanada]

The Limits to Renewable Energy - Urban Insight

What would a world with a 100 per cent renewable energy mix look like? And which are the limits to integrate renewable energy? In order to slow the pace of global warming and achieve a sustainable society it is clear that we need to increase the share of renewable energy globally. But today the integration of renewables is still progressing very slowly in many countries. The report “The Limits to Renewable Energy” explores the use of renewables today and the obstacles for further expansion.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed that the effects of a 1 degree increase in global average temperature are already being felt globally but also, that the most severe effects of global warming can be avoided if action is taken now.

Common examples of climate mitigation include reducing energy demand and shifting energy production from fossil fuels to renewable energy. But what are the limits to integrating renewable energy? And what does a world with a 100 per cent renewable energy mix look like?

DIFFERENT RENEWABLES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES?

While some countries have a very high share of renewable energy, others still rely heavily on coal, oil and gas. But there are also great differences when it comes to the mix of different renewables. For example, Norway has a very high share of hydropower while its Nordic neighbour Denmark has much more wind power.

A number of factors can explain a country’s preference for one type of technology over another. Academic research indicates that growth in renewable energy in any specific country is less motivated by climate change concerns or fossil fuel costs, and more by the presence of strong lobby groups looking to support national industry.

National industry is in turn more likely to have grown where there are natural resources to support the early development of an industry. For example, the biomass boiler industry in Austria and the wind turbine industries in Germany and Denmark. Public interest and acceptance for particular types of renewable energy are driven by multiple factors, including support of local jobs and industry, visual impacts and public awareness of climate change.

CHALLENGES IN INCREASING RENEWABLES PENETRATION

There are a number of challenges associated with building a renewable energy system. For example when it comes to transmission of electricity, heating and transport. But there are also social, economic and political aspects that need to be taken into account. In order to increase the penetration of renewables worldwide innovative solutions to these problems are required.

ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION

Maximum renewable energy penetration will bring with it a massive transformation of electricity networks and the way electrical power is transmitted, generated and sold. The electricity system of the future needs to be highly flexible to rapidly adjust to the variable power output of renewable energy sources.

In addition to effects on generation and transmission, characteristics of renewable energy converters disrupt the way conventional electricity markets function. Market structures need to evolve to integrate renewable power properly.

HEAT AND TRANSPORT

Energy consumption for heat and transport is a significant proportion of overall energy use in Europe. However, these are both sectors that have traditionally been heavily reliant on fossil fuels – for transport, through the use of petrol and diesel-fuelled cars; and for heating, through the use of oil and natural gas boilers in buildings.

To decarbonise transport, we either need to incorporate biofuels, such as biodiesel, or switch to hybrid, electric or hydrogen cars. For heating, particularly in urban areas, the main approaches are through district heating or electrification of heat, or a combination of the two.

SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

On a local level, societies may benefit from municipal and community-owned renewable energy schemes. In such schemes, the centralised nature of power is decentralised, giving end-users more control over the whole system.

On a national level, renewable energy may create new jobs in the industry and support moves towards a long-term sustainable development plan with lower risks associated with fuel import volatility, carbon prices and political tensions. This is particularly true where countries are highly dependent on fuel imports.

The trade in electricity between countries is less prone to political tension than trade involving oil and gas. Naturally, some countries have more energy resources than others, but differences in electricity resources are smaller than those relating to fossil fuel reserves.

Climate change is likely to affect future migration patterns. The latest IPCC report described the African continent as the one that will be most affected by climate change. As a consequence, Europe is likely to see increasing amounts of climate refugees. At the moment, Finland and Sweden are the only countries in the world with an official policy concerning environmental migrants in their official immigration and asylum policies. This may be subject to change as weather trends become increasingly less predictable and more severe and the number of “climate change refugees” increases.

The cost of renewable power has been decreasing for decades and dropping faster than anticipated. Now, renewable power uptake is increasing the electricity prices and requires government support. However, in the long term, as technology matures, the costs of running an entire energy system on renewable energy will be lower and subsidies on fossil fuels are likely to fall away.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We already have the technologies, the proven business cases and the infrastructure to support wider integration of renewables into energy systems. What is holding us back? Who is holding us back?

For some, there is a fear that the scale of available renewables is insufficient to meet all of our energy demands. What happens if we go down the route towards 100 per cent renewables? The goal is not to cover and crowd the landscape and let the horizon to disappear under tens of thousands of solar panels or large wind turbines, but instead use renewable sources in smart ways. To meet future demands we need to create more interactions between sectors and systems.

One of the biggest challenges in the energy sector is matching the timings between generation and consumption of energy. On a “good” energy day, the sun blazes and the wind howls and fills our electricity grid with cheap, renewable energy. On a “bad” energy day, the skies are grey and the wind is still and we rely on backup from hydro or conventional generation. On good days we should also be furiously energetic and use as much energy as we can – and on bad days we should turn to quieter pursuits.

Digitalisation, energy storage and demand response are the keys to helping future energy systems maintain balance as we move from separate energy consumption. The generation of energy for heat, electricity and transport is interconnected through storage, monitored through smart meters, and changed through voluntary shifting of demand.

Time is running out to make unprecedented changes to the way we work and live if we want to continue to work and live in a world that resembles the one we have today.

All over the world initiatives are being taken to minimise carbon emissions and the impacts of climate change. The increase of renewable energy is key to achieving a climate neutral, sustainable future and it’s a solution that is already being implemented in many different countries. The limits to renewables are not technical, or financial, or regulatory – they are the ones we set for ourselves and for each other.

the-limits-to-renewable-energy/

[vtsnowedin]

From the post above:

On a local level, societies may benefit from municipal and community-owned renewable energy schemes. In such schemes, the centralised nature of power is decentralised, giving end-users more control over the whole system.

That sentence is a contradiction within itself.
Government owning or managing anything is a sure way to increase costs and removes control and options from the end users hands.

[ROCKMAN]

vt - But we no doubt will hear how successful such efforts prove to be. Consider the Post Office. After announcing it was going to increase first class mail delivery by several days it wasn't 2 weeks before it proudly claimed it was hitting delivery schedules 91% of the time. All it had to do was change the expected timing to meet what it had been doing and SHAZAM!!!...success. LMFAO.

[vtsnowedin]

vt - But we no doubt will hear how successful such efforts prove to be. Consider the Post Office. After announcing it was going to increase first class mail delivery by several days it wasn't 2 weeks before it proudly claimed it was hitting delivery schedules 91% of the time. All it had to do was change the expected timing to meet what it had been doing and SHAZAM!!!...success. LMFAO.

Aah Yup they will move the goalposts as much as needed to make their fumble become a score.

[Subjectivist]

Renewable Energy Projects Are Facing Resistance Around The World


Governments around the world are pushing for the rapid development of renewable energy projects in an attempt to move away from fossil fuels. But as Europe and the U.S. speed ahead with new solar and wind projects, the criticism these projects are facing is ramping up as well. Whether or not energy firms can develop the largescale projects necessary for an energy transition in the face of such opposition remains to be seen.

During COP26, many governments made bold promises to introduce radical climate targets and invest heavily in the renewable energy sector. The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has only added fuel to the fire, as the potential oil and gas shortage has political powers looking to renewables as an alternative energy source. But many of these grand plans have been met with significant opposition from local residents, often because of a ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) mentality.

In Vermont, residents argue that giant wind turbines destroy the mountainous landscape and create noise that keeps them up at night. When it comes to solar farms, people argue that the expansive sea of solar panels takes away from prime agricultural land. Others have environmentalism at the core of the argument, as each renewable energy project requires new roads and infrastructure to bring vast amounts of equipment to rural areas. Often, explosives are used to carve out the landscape and make it accessible for workers to construct wind and solar farms. But more-often-than-not people have a NIMBY response to renewable operations.
This seems ironic in a state often hailed as a green leader, with 99.9 percent of its in-state-produced electricity coming from renewable sources. Yet, many of these largescale renewable projects emerged around a decade ago, with no new major projects currently in the pipeline.

In fact, renewable energy projects often face the same level of opposition as fossil fuel developments. In France last year, fishing boats blocked a ship in Brittany with the aim of preventing a $2.9 billion wind farm from being developed. The fishermen argued that it could disrupt the marine life in the region as well as negatively affect their livelihoods. Due to the large area of land or water required to install renewable energy projects, agricultural workers and fisherfolk around the world are increasingly protesting new developments by energy firms.

But as governments make net-zero carbon emissions pledges, and courts put pressure on oil and gas companies to invest more heavily in renewables and cut their emissions, there is a new era of resistance over energy projects. Residents opposing the projects find themselves battling against both the companies doing the project and environmentalists who want the developments to go ahead. For rural workers, there is also a fear that supporting renewable energy projects in their area could cost them their jobs. This sentiment is being felt not only in Europe and the U.S. but also in Korea, Colombia, and Mexico, to name a few.
A whole other conundrum emerges when it comes to environmentalists, who, on the surface, support renewable energy projects but when wind and solar farms crop up across the country many of these activists complain about the environmental impact. Wind farms inevitably disrupt the wildlife in their vicinity due to noise pollution and the power of their huge blades. Wind turbines often kill migrating birds that fly into their path. In areas where there are endangered species, this is seen as even more of a problem.

In the U.K., a wind farm on the Norfolk Coast being backed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson could power 10 percent of UK homes, around 3.9 million houses, once up and running. And Swedish firm Vattenfall, which is running the project, believes “offshore wind will be the backbone of our energy system as we tackle climate change. By 2050, it’s estimated that renewable energy will provide 80% of our electricity needs, and much of this will need to come from offshore wind farms.” And “Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas are part of the next generation of wind farms. By working with communities, the supply chain, skills and environmental experts, we have designed projects that can bring real lasting benefits”, it stated.
Meanwhile, land-use conflicts in the U.S. have meant that 31 big wind and 13 major solar projects were halted across the country in 2021. So, just what are governments and energy firms supposed to do as they are pushed to develop the renewable energy sector while facing constant opposition from one side or another? With pledges of net-zero and worries over fossil fuel energy shortages, it has never been more important to expand the renewable energy sector, but it will not be an easy ride. Governments will need to work with communities to give residents and rural workers the support they need as huge new solar and wind farms are constructed to secure the future of energy.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy ... World.html

[theluckycountry]

[b]Renewable Energy Projects Are Facing Resistance Around The World

And it's mostly coming from the fact that these "re-buildables" cost a fortune to set up. The green states here and the green nations of Europe, aside from Norway with it's hydro, have consumer energy costs twice that of coal powered ones. Similarly the price of an EV is at least twice that of a conventional vehicle. There are many reasons people are turning away from them but the elephant in the room has always been price and probably always will be.

[AdamB]

Similarly the price of an EV is at least twice that of a conventional vehicle. There are many reasons people are turning away from them but the elephant in the room has always been price and probably always will be.

Maybe in the land of those who can't build submarines for themselves and love purchasing American built cars, but I've purchased 2 EVs now, one of which was directly comparable to an ICE machine in terms of cost, and the other which was 50% less....in part I believe because a used EV has the aspect of "gee...can I trust the battery" and this fear affecting price. So no....not only are my running costs a fraction of an ICE powered machine, but the CapX was less as well. Now run along and stop trying to participate in exercises requiring thought or experience, and get back to banana bending.

[vtsnowedin]

Well Tesla announced a price increase today on at least one model but considering what ICE new vehicle prices have done recently not to mention used car prices I think on a total cost per mile basis they are staying parallel.

[Pops]

I really like reading Alice Friedman's blog. This is from a few days ago:

Enough minerals for a solar, wind, & battery transition from fossil fuels?
Preface. The transition could require as much as $173 trillion in energy supply and infrastructure investment over the next three decades. One HELL of a lot of metals needed – questionable if possible in in three decades, especially with China dominating these technologies and minerals. As you read this, consider that the U.S. generates over 4 million gigawatts (GW) electricity a year.

Solar panels with the power capacity of ONE GW need about 18.5 tons of silver, 3,380 tons of polysilicon and 10,252 tons of aluminum
Wind turbines and infrastructure with the power capacity of ONE GW need about 387 tons of aluminum, 2,866 tons of copper and 154,352 tons of steel
Lithium-ion batteries able to store ONE GW hour of energy require 729 tons of lithium, 1,202 tons of aluminum and 1,731 tons of copper
Do the math: Multiply the above by 4,000,000. And then do it all over again in 10 years (battery lifetime) or 20 years (wind turbine lifespan) or 18-25 years (solar panels).

Of course it isn't always quite accurate. I just bought 3Kw of Trina panels that are guaranteed to output 80% of rated power at 25 years. And it is an insurance backed warranty even though they've been around a while. That's a lifetime guarantee for me. Same with the LiFePo batteries, a 10 year or 7,000 full-cycle warrantee—7k full cycles is 19 years if you take the whole bank to 0 every day. And then the minerals inside are still there, just need a little recycle.

All the big numbers sound daunting until you realize we use 4.2 BILLION gallons of oil per day, every day, baseline—not to mention everything invested to now in fossil infrastructure. I don't have a clue as to how much steel, etc we use to get there, but a lot.

We won't replace fossils one for one with renewables, that is kind of the whole point behind the concern around peak oil. But I've been intrigued about PV since about 1974 or thereabouts, so to get panels for 43¢/W a 6.5kW charger/inverter for $1,500 and a battery bank for 33¢/W is pretty amazing to me. All in besides the mount and misc for < $1/W with 4 days of storage.

Now will those prices hold? That's the question. If they continue falling then we're good, if there are supply problems then bets are off.

[evilgenius]

I watched this guy on YouTube the other day tell me how his panels paid for themselves. They paid for themselves and were still going at whatever percentage efficiency they were advertised at. His problem was how, if they didn't, the company that sold them to him had gone out of business years ago.

[Pops]

Which can be said for any product.

[AdamB]

We won't replace fossils one for one with renewables, that is kind of the whole point behind the concern around peak oil.

And there is no need to, as Hubbert enumerated the potential of nuclear power at the same time he made his 2nd claim of peak oil in the US, in the 1956 paper that folks seemed to forget was titled:

Nuclear Energy And The Fossil Fuels

It could be argued that because his peak oil claims were so wrong, that his claims for nuclear energy might be as well?

At the end of the day, as I was once told by an eminent scientist type, "a country could be considered rich and well off as long as it has sufficient supply of electricity at a reasonable cost". The good news with this proclamation from such an eminent scientist is that electricity can be made in many ways, and only renewable sources is not a requirement within his statement.

As to the argument that nuke power can't replace fossil fuels, there is no need for such, as long as it can replace the manufactured products created from fossil fuels. Like electricity. Like liquid hydrocarbons of some sort for specific, high density liquid fuel needs. I suppose creating something in the gaseous state would be helpful to some processes, so the hydrogen gas could become an expensive and potentially hazardous replacement as well. As usual, it just depends on the price at which the usefulness of such a fuel balances out against others.

I find the argument of non-renewable metals/alloys/raw materials of that type far more of a problem than just the ability to generate electricity or hydrogen to replace direct fossil fuel use. And that leads to the long term question as to the return on our investment, said investment being the miners that we cast out onto other planets to look for large piles of minerals and whatnot.

Seriously, folks don't think we've been sending out the modern equivalent of men with pick-axes on donkeys to drill on Mars and taking samples from asteroids just for "love of science" do you? GO MURIKA!

[kublikhan]

Preface. The transition could require as much as $173 trillion in energy supply and infrastructure investment over the next three decades. One HELL of a lot of metals needed – questionable if possible in in three decades, especially with China dominating these technologies and minerals. As you read this, consider that the U.S. generates over 4 million gigawatts (GW) electricity a year.

Solar panels with the power capacity of ONE GW need about 18.5 tons of silver, 3,380 tons of polysilicon and 10,252 tons of aluminum
Wind turbines and infrastructure with the power capacity of ONE GW need about 387 tons of aluminum, 2,866 tons of copper and 154,352 tons of steel
Lithium-ion batteries able to store ONE GW hour of energy require 729 tons of lithium, 1,202 tons of aluminum and 1,731 tons of copper
Do the math: Multiply the above by 4,000,000. And then do it all over again in 10 years (battery lifetime) or 20 years (wind turbine lifespan) or 18-25 years (solar panels).

Enough minerals for a solar, wind, & battery transition from fossil fuels?

This author is conflating generation with capacity. The US generates around 4 million gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity a year. The US does NOT have 4 million GW of electricity capacity. It has around 1,000 GW of capacity. Of which, less than 800 GW is fossil fueled. So there is no need to multiply the numbers by 4 million. Multipling them by 800 is fine.

The author also fails to take into account recycling and second use applications:

Some 85-90% of the mass of wind turbines is composed of materials that are easily recyclable — including steel, cement, copper, electronics and gearing — and have well-established procedures for doing so.

There continues to be a strong market for second-hand turbines in eastern Europe and other parts of the world.

Wind power industry steps up efforts to reuse and recycle blades

Thanks to its progressive environmental policies, California currently accounts for 42% of the nation’s electric vehicles. And, for several years, state legislators have recognized the potential toxic consequences posed by the battery-powered vehicles.

Assembly Bill 2832, signed into law in 2018, called for an electric vehicle advisory group to develop legislative and regulatory recommendations to ensure that “as close to 100% as possible of lithium-ion batteries in the state are reused or recycled at end-of-life.”

When a battery no longer provides the desired range for a car, it can have another decade of use for electrical storage.

What happens when millions of electric car batteries get old?