- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Crushed rock. What’s really been crushed is the public’s capacity for critical thought. Forget maths being taught up to eighteen, critical thinking is what should be taught (but then, that’s the last thing the PTB want).
Coupled with a rudimentary grounding in physics, it would obviate the need for drawn out debates such as this one.
The problem with this thread is that one poster is up against an array of, shall we say, less-informed contributors.The facts are not open to interpretation.
As has been stated, ad nauseam, it comes down to:
⦁ the far superior energy density of fossil fuels (FF) compared to renewable energy (RE)
⦁ the vast number of products (medicines, fuels (petrol, aviation and especially, diesel), plastics, industrial chemicals, paints, fertilisers etc.) derived from oil, which RE will be unable to replace
⦁ the finite nature of FF (millions of years to create, mere years to use up)
⦁ the insanity of continuing to pursue infinte economic growth on a finite planet
⦁ psychopaths running the showThe system itself is irredeemably corrupt. Although it might seem so now, it’s not inevitable that we end up being governed by psychopaths. When the sole driving force behind everthing in society is profit, the result is what we see today. Massive environmental pollution and destruction, grinding poverty contrasting with obscene wealth for a tiny minority, ‘democracy’ being bought by the highest bidders, increasing censorship and blanket MSM propaganda, ever expanding laws restricting citizens’ rights. Public utilities (state owned, i.e. owned by us) being sold off, thus changing their goal from public service to private profit. An increasing reliance on ‘experts’, worshipped by the ‘news’, whose word is to be taken as gospel by the plebs (this, together with the influence of Big Pharma, is what led to the ‘covid’ panic). A pathetic faith that RE will save our profligate way of life. A delusion.
After it’s all over (decades?), it will be up to the survivors trying to rebuild to ensure that no psychopaths are allowed anywhere near the wheel.
Such societies exist (Native Americans, various indigenous tribes etc.) so there’s no reason it can’t be done. In the meantime, get some tins of food in, bottled water, candles, tools – and popcorn.Lapsed Agnostic, instead of off topic empty insults and misrepresentation on a different post by Craig Murray if the arguments and references you claim to have posted here above are so certain (that windmills 2% and solar panels 1% of global energy can scale up to replace 85% supplied by fossils without the global population crashing to half a billion by end of century whilst the ecosphere is trashed mining it for metals and rocks needed to build ultra low energy density solar energy flow harvesting processing and distribution infrastructure) then you can do it in half a paragraph and we can all shut up and think about something else:-
Please tell us how Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, Simon Michaux – Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels – has got it wrong? He writes:-
“In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds.”
“This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.”
“Preliminary calculations in the current study indicates the required number of units will require more minerals, metals and materials than is in current known global mineral reserve inventories. The disparity is so large that exploring for new mineral deposits, with the sole objective of opening more producing mines in the required time frame, cannot be the only solution. […] All indications suggest that the planned renewable energy systems need to be considered merely as a steppingstone to something else. […] a reliable energy source that is available to most of the human population with an ERoEI ratio of something like 50:1 is required (or even higher). Existing fossil fuels are not effective enough, nor appropriate. Renewable technologies on their own are not enough to meet these requirements. A fundamental restructuring of how we see energy, how we harness it and how we use it is required.”
ET, in my own words:-
Net energy gain (~ 10:1 or above) in a whole system account = “Thermodynamically Competent”.
Hence my “crushed rock” maths (above example) to further expose (as part of a net energy account in a whole system analysis) electric power trains (~12% of payload volume) in mining trucks as being about one third larger by volume than diesel power trains (~8% of payload volume) – in addition to raw energy density of batteries (~ 2 MJ/Kg) being one tenth that of liquid hydrocarbons (~40 MJ/Kg).
You ask “So what Natasha”? Well, these energy density numbers above alone guarantees electricity can’t support mining = NOT “Thermodynamically Competent”.
Then in addition you answer yourself (!): “The obvious question is where will the electricity to power it come from” to power remote mining activities ?
Like you I support nuclear electricity, BUT in remote mines electricity distribution is magical thinking. = NOT “Thermodynamically Competent”. Hydrogen is stupid, erm… sorry: NOT “Thermodynamically Competent”. Nuclear electricity to make hydrocarbon Synfuel is, erm… NOT “Thermodynamically Competent” either: its too inefficient (for decades at least) PLUS nuclear is barely 4% of global energy and there isn’t enough uranium or thorium let alone no where near enough new plants being built for decades if at all.
Best option for nuclear in the UK is fast breeder PRISM reactors to burn all the nuclear waste at Sellafield – enough for UK electricity for hundreds of years **
** HELLO Scottish Independence Supporters – electricity independence and control of net electricity exports is just sitting there waiting to be exploited.
** Become a world leader in a nationalised nuclear electricity supply infrastructure build-out by burning nuclear waste rendering it safe as background radiation in 300 years instead of 300,000 years too!
Win Win WIN !
“Net energy gain (~ 10:1 or above) in a whole system account = “Thermodynamically Competent”
Which is why I can’t relate to the term. Natasha, I get the point you are trying to make. However, “thermodynamically” has no place in that concept. To me thermodynamics refers to the physics of the system, the energy transfers etc. Every thermodynamic system is competent except perpetual motion machines (which don’t exist so therefore can’t be described as “incompetent” merely non-existant). What you really mean is the worthiness or not of pursuing extracting energy where the gain is less than ten times the energy put in to extract it. That is NOT thermodynamics. That is an economic or valuation of effort viewpoint not a thermodynamic (physics) viewpoint. As such, I suggest the term “Thermodynamically Competent” is incompetent in itself. It’s not that I don’t understand where you are coming from but it turns me off like an electioneering slogan does. It’s an incompetent slogan.
“the far superior energy density of fossil fuels (FF) compared to renewable energy (RE)”
I get that Bob, but the thing is, continuing to burn fossil fuels is producing huge amounts of CO2 which is contributing to an unprecedented global warming. Should we just ignore that? Even if you disagree with anthropogenic climate change you state that fossil fuels will run out or become non-viable in terms of energy return. So either way, we need to be working on that problem.
“the vast number of products (medicines, fuels (petrol, aviation and especially, diesel), plastics, industrial chemicals, paints, fertilisers etc.) derived from oil, which RE will be unable to replace”
Plastics are way overused and are a pollution problem all of themselves. I don’t need my vegetables or meats wrapped in plastic. I definitely don’t need the ridiculous packaging that a lot of our stuff comes in, all for the cause of security in retail outlets. There is a lot of scope to reduce unnecessary plastic usage. Where there is no viable replacement for plastics, there is a case for continuing to process fossil fuels to continue manufacturing it.
” the insanity of continuing to pursue infinte economic growth on a finite planet”
I don’t think you’ll find anyone here disagreeing with you on that point.
ET, I disagree. The term “Thermodynamically Competent” in the context of whole system analysis of “solar energy flow harvesting machines” is an appropriate description of the output options from such an analysis using inputs of “the physics of the system, the energy transfers etc.” as you put it.
I agree that then setting the ratio (e.g. 10:1) on those physics outputs is a choice based on the externalities you raise “economic or valuation of effort viewpoint” – but that does not invalidate the physics needed prior to applying whatever ratio threshold is most informative.
“Thermodynamically Competent” is a phrase used by Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
One may well note that the Skeptic awarded the GWPF its 2022 Rusty Razor award as part of its annual presentation of Ockham Awards, naming the foundation as “the year’s worst promoters of pseudoscience” for its “prolific attempts to weaken and undermine public and political will to tackle climate change”.
And then shriek “CLIMATE DENIER!” and run off feeling better about the world.
But the Skeptic is regurgitating somewhat childish misrepresentations: the GWPF are driven to influence short term government spending not on debunking climate science, although their director still thinks taxes fund government spending when the central banks have expanded money supply! In the US it went from about $1 trillion in the early years of this century to about $2 trillion, then $4 trillion after the 2008 Financial Crisis, and now it is over $9 trillion dollars. Same pattern in most wealthy nations.
Indeed the definition of science according to Karl Popper is that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment – until new data and /or ‘black swans’ arrive. That is science should attempt to disprove a theory, rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses.
Thus GWPF & NZW are simply pointing out that mainstream media and political discourse holding so tightly to wealthy nations’ Net Zero targets is according to Popper’s definitions anti-scientific – in other words those who cry out “black swan” should be respected and have their data analysed not rejected as “Rusty Razor” freaks.
Further, the GWPF & NTZ basic conclusion upon which all their subsequent policy recommendations are based, is that the economic viability of solar energy flow harvesting infrastructure to scale up from 4% of global energy supply to replace fossil fuels 77% in 28 years is at best deeply misguided bovine excrement – a conclusion shared by a rapidly increasing number of scientists and others (linked to above numerous times) who have looked at the maths, physics, engineering and geology of the task set by ignorant politicians to chase the Net Zero unicorn trying to build “thermodynamically incompetent” infrastructure, and concluded that its unlikely to happen and that chasing this unicorn will become an increasingly more expensive mistake.
ET, you are right, we need to be working on some sort of transition to RE, but it will have to involve a sudden reduction in our use of fuel, products… everything. That will require a radical change in the mindset of the population which is not realistically going to happen. (E.g. no politician would ever get elected with that message.)
It’s a shame we’ve ended up in this mess, due to short-term thinking and profit seeking by our MIC psychopathic rulers, enabled by their propaganda arm, the mainstream media.I have been trying to work out just how many solar panels would be required to produce the energy used by, for example, Ireland in a year. I have rounded up Ireland’s total energy consumption (not just electricity) to 200 TWh (terrawatt hours) per annum. It’s not quite that but close enough. 1 TWh is 1,000,000,000,000 watt hours or 1 Bilion Kilowatt hours (KWh).
A 350 watt solar panel with 3.5 hours sun a day produces 1.225 KWh a day. That’s a favourable estimate for Irish weather conditions but for an estimate let’s go with it. So, 447.125 KWh per year. Ireland would need 447,302,208 three hundred and fifty (350) watt solar panels, heading towards half a billion. That would be 81.3 350 watt solar panels per man, woman and child in Ireland (approx). Let’s say the cost for the panel, installation, all the inverters etc equates to 1000 euro a panel. That’s not far off 500 billion euro which is Ireland’s total GDP for 2022 more or less.
Ireland produced in 2021 25 TWh from wind, 2 TWh from hydro and less than 1 TWh from solar.
None of the above includes cost of contingency for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, the cost of storage facilities (ie. batteries of some kind), the grid infrastructure to distribute it or the cost of converting everything to run on electrical power. I haven’t considered where all the material for making those panels would come from or the energy costs of manufacture.
Any village or town that has a decline in topography towards a river or lake, has the potential for a hydro battery/pond/lake to be created.
The Dutch drained the Fens via windmills, old fashioned but not to be dismissed. A simple windmill, old or new, can generate electricity/mill corn, or run other machinery via a belt. That electricity pumps water into our hydro battery.
When the wind stops blowing, the sluice gate to the modern turbine at the bottom of the hill, even if it is not steep, will produce electricity. With a clever electronic switch, the demand could operate the sluice gate, shutting it when there is no demand.
Such an arrangement is sustainable, does not require lithium or rate earth elements, and can very likely be put together using existing parts and electrickery already in existence, although it may not supply enough for high energy users, who need electricity to dry cloth or mow lawns and power space heaters.Our university’s motto was ‘Do different’.
Part 1. Harmonizing “point of use” calculations.
In December 2022 Ugo Bardi offered his readers “The Miracle of Renewables” celebrating “a much-needed update and harmonization of the EROI literature” by D. Murphy et al (2022)
To enable more rigorous comparisons between different fuels (fossils, bio-derived, and electricity), the authors “harmonise” supply chains to derive “point of use” EROI numbers for each of them. They compare “usable fuels at point of use (e.g., petrol or diesel at the pump, or heavy fuel oil at point of delivery)” with electricity from “renewable technologies”, fossils, and nuclear, to calculate comparative EROI values (aggregating 31 out of 113 previous studies) to make them “consistent with respect to the process chain boundary […] (namely: preparation, transmission, refining, purification, and distribution).”
Whilst the authors acknowledge that “the argument has been made for EROI practitioners to adopt the more formal methodological framework established by the life cycle assessment (LCA) community”, they don’t specifically acknowledge that before “renewable technologies” arrive at “point of use” distribution infrastructures, compared to fossil fuels or nuclear electricity, low energy density, solar energy flow harvesting infrastructure requires significantly more land area use i.e. more “Extractivism”.
For example PV solar farms, due to their very low comparative energy density, require about 60 times more land (~19m2 / MWh), and wind farms about 300 times more land (~100m2 / Mwh), than nuclear (~0.3m2 / MWh) and natural gas plants (~1m2 / MWh).
Additionally, post “point of use” impacts of end-of-life disposability / re-cycling energy footprints between different fuel use technologies will also vary significantly.
Life Cycle Assessment’s (LCA’s) have four phases, the second is the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis, which involves creating an inventory of “flows from and to nature (ecosphere)” for a product system. LCI is the process of quantifying raw material and energy requirements, atmospheric emissions, land emissions, water emissions, resource uses, and other releases over the life cycle of a product or process. In other words, it is the aggregation of all elementary flows related to each unit process within a product system. The overall LCA goal is to identify the alternative that has the least cradle-to-grave environmental negative impact on land, sea, and air resources.
Crucially, “the life cycle assessment (LCA) community” appears to not reference the fact that the planet has finite quantities of land, sea and atmosphere, only in deriving comparisons as if there were no overall limits. Since ‘they’re not making anymore of it’ using finite land for low energy density “renewable technologies” will lower whole-system energy availability for other uses.
Comparative land use impacts were accounted for in only one of the 18 studies (available to non-institutional readers – full texts are usually hidden behind paywalls) referenced by the authors for PV solar and wind calculations: “Global available solar energy under physical and energy return on investment constraints”, but not in comparison to any other energy types.
If “renewable technology” electricity, needing 60 or 300 times more land – both pre and post “point of use” – were to replace the 85% of global energy supplied by fossil fuels, they would need to scale-up 5 or 6 times from the 9% to 15% (depending on data source) of global energy consumption electricity now supplies. On a finite planet “renewable technology” scale-up is not even remotely likely.
It is a significant flaw to render as externalities under LCA analysis “Flows from and to nature (ecosphere)” and “Extractivism” because both significantly lower whole-system energy availability for other uses.
Part 2. Post “point of use”
Even if the impacts of limits to resources like land, sea and air on finite planet have indeed been accounted for by the “LCA community” or are otherwise not relevant, calculation only up to “point of use” are far from the full story. For example, to deliver benefits to humans, different fuels – post “point of use” – require different types of fuel consumption technologies to be manufactured, each requiring different types and quantities of limited raw materials and energy inputs – including land use – to complete “point of use” fuels’ final transformation into waste heat.
Whilst the “much-needed EROI update” study is specifically not concerned with post “point of use” comparative technological efficiencies, in their ‘Discussion and Conclusions’ the authors go beyond this self-imposed restriction writing that “a significant increase in the penetration of renewable technologies into the electricity grid mixes will have to be accompanied by a concomitant deployment of electrical storage [but] high temporal resolution grid balancing algorithms […] indicate that the additional energy investment for electrochemical energy storage does not significantly affect the overall EROI of the resulting electricity mix.”
But scale-up of “grid balancing algorithms” (which tacitly acknowledge a huge scale up in needed numbers of small but massively distributed electricity generators) would require vast quantities of additional silicon wafers to run those “algorithms” upon, which are dependant upon helium for their manufacture, which is not replaceable, and is in critical short supply. Plus its extraction will almost certainly peak when production from the natural gas reservoirs containing economical amounts of helium peaks. Plus any scale-up will be severely limited by demands from other indispensable land-uses, such as agriculture and wild life.
The authors continue: “Oil is widely considered the most important fuel for the economy, used mostly in the transportation sector. This means that oil delivers less net energy to society for each unit invested in extraction, refining, and delivery than PV or wind.”
But again, since the authors’ analysis deliberately excludes post “point of use” inputs, thereby missing the whole-system perspective necessary for an honest and full evaluation of competing fuels uses – and their relative environmental impacts i.e. “Extractivism” – such projections in the “transportation sector” or any other sector, of “net energy to society” are somewhat unsubstantiated speculation and misleading.
Why? Because oil and electricity, whilst they are being consumed by society post “point of use”, require significantly different technologies than “renewable technologies” do – with significantly different land use inputs causing environmental and social impacts – to yield useful work. For example, electricity “storage technologies” are close to electrochemical energy density limits (~ 2 MJ/Kg), and are an order of magnitude or so less energy dense than fossil fuels (~40 MJ/Kg), and don’t scale up in size: batteries are OK for physically small devices like mobile phones, that deliver low power loads but are still around half battery by mass.
But for mining, agriculture and heavy transport uses, requiring much higher power loads than mobile phones, “storage technologies” can’t scale up to replace diesel, especially in remote locations far from charging infrastructure.
In a mining truck prototype being tested this year, an electric power train (~12% of payload volume ~ 14 m3 ) is about one third larger than the diesel power train (~ 8% of payload volume ~ 10 m3 ) being replaced. Also, the raw energy density of batteries (~ 2 MJ/Kg) is one tenth that of liquid hydrocarbons (~40 MJ/Kg).
The authors next suggest a future “transition to electric vehicles, according to these results, will actually increase the amount of net energy delivered to society (even more so when considering the higher efficiency of electrical power trains vs. internal combustion engines)” thus straying yet further beyond their papers’ self-imposed “point of use” limit. The scale up limits (one planet and batteries) described above, appear to have been rendered as invisible externalities by the authors, further compounding the self-inflicted whole-system-perspective flaws in their work, since both pre and post “point of use” equipment infrastructure is in practice entirely dependant – and always will be – for its manufacture and build out upon high energy density and high process heat provided by liquid and gas fuels with EROIs of “less than 10”.
Thus the authors’ “renewable technology” EROIs of “about 30” at “point of use” may turn out to have significantly lower ‘whole system’ EROIs if combined with post “point of use” EROIs and ‘one planet’ finite land use’ competition demands, thereby accounting for the whole route to final waste heat, not just half way through to “point of use”.
Forget “net zero” and “decoupling” – they’re shams.
“There is another way. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth […] A lopsided emphasis on humans by humans – the Europeans’ arrogance of acting as though they were beyond the nature of all related things – can only result in a total disharmony and a readjustment which cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control and restores the harmony.”
“I Am Not a Leader”: Russell Means’ (1980).Zion Lights is probably best remembered for her ‘difficult’ tv interview with Andrew Neil in October 2019. She was the speaker for XR and I can only admire her integrity she stood by her post and did her duty. She spoke a lot of tommy rot, but that was her job at the time.
Not long after that she resigned and became an advocate for nuclear power.
My acceptance of nuclear matches hers. I suspect we won’t see eye to eye that we can’t have reliable and adequate supplies of electricity without fossil fuels in the mix, but heyho nobodies perfect.Nuclear and fossil ain’t the danger, not having adequate electricity supplies is…_
Thanks DiggerUK, Zion Lights seems a sensible woman. I remember when she ‘came-out’ as nuclear and joined up with Michael Shellenberger Environmental Progress for 5 months then setting up ‘Emergency Reactor‘.
In 2019 I wrote a long essay called ‘Atomic Humanism’ in response to XR protests, to Green MP Caroline Lucas urging the Green Party to adopt nuclear energy.
I went to a local XR meeting with some leaflets with links to ‘Atomic Humanism’ urging XR to realise that if we ‘Just Stop Oil’ civilization would collapse, because climate change is a symptom, so lets talk about possible solutions, that might be doable, like nuclear rather than preaching doom. But the meeting was a fix-up of speakers chanting the cult doom message dominating the space and I was asked to take my leaflets away!
MP Caroline Lucas wrote back calling me a ‘climate denier’ – same old trick as the Rodger Hallam cult!
Finally I found it! Video mentioning estimates at the current rate of global extraction to Renewable 100% demand. Sorry for bad description!!
Thanks Pigeon English, the video features Simon Michaux Associate Professor of Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, who published – Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels – concluding that “replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds.”
Nuclear power produces a small proportion of the world’s electricity, so an even smaller proportion of humanity’s total energy. It could be scaled up, but there isn’t really enough uranium:
World’s Uranium Resources Enough for the Foreseeable Future, Say NEA and IAEA in New Report
– IAEA iaea.org
– … The world’s conventional identified uranium resources amounted to 8 070 400 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) as of 1 January 2019. These represent all reasonably assured and inferred uranium resources that could be recovered at market prices ranging from 40 to 260 USD/KgU (equivalent to 15 to 100 USD/lb U3O8). Compared to the total reported in the 2018 edition, this is an increase of only 1%. A small portion of the overall changes in identified resources relate to new discoveries…
– …Depending on developments in the nuclear energy sector, reactor-related uranium requirements could range from 56 640 tU/yr in a low demand scenario to 100 224 tU/yr in a high demand scenario by 2040…
– Given these projections, the uranium resource base described in the Red Book is more than adequate to meet low and high case uranium demand through 2040 and beyond. Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of < USD 130/kgU (USD 50/lb U3O8) and 87% of identified resources available at a cost of < USD 80/kgU (equivalent USD 30/lb U3O8)…
I make that about eighty to one hundred and fifty years worth. This is “conventional uranium”, ie. it’s in a readily available form, and of course there are other forms that are more difficult to recover – but that’s a depletion scenario, just as with fossil hydrocarbons. So I’ll hazard a guess that uranium couldn’t supply all humanity’s energy needs for more than about fifty years.
Here’s an interesting paper from 2010 that’s relevant to this discussion; one that may interest Lapsed Agnostic:
The status of conventional world oil reserves — Hype or cause for concern?
DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.026
Nick Owen, University of Cambridge;
Oliver R Inderwildi, Swiss Academy of Sciences;
David A. King – (Wikipedia page)– The status of world oil reserves is a contentious issue, polarised between advocates of peak oil who believe production will soon decline, and major oil companies that say there is enough oil to last for decades. In reality, much of the disagreement can be resolved through clear definition of the grade, type, and reporting framework used to estimate oil reserve volumes.
I think that the main problem with a renewable energy right now in the world, it is an absolute disproof of its usage. I mean, people (or governments?) are trying to implement them instead of fossil fuels.
In my opinion, renewable energy is a pivotal factor. However, it should not be an absolute solution to everything. At least, until the humankind will research better renewable energy and its proper connection to our daily life.
Right now, thanks to the fossil fuels, I am able to order things from abroad. Thanks to it, I was able to transport to spain from uk two high-priced nezuke statues that I was about to gift to parents of my wife. I do not think, that renewably energised ships would be able to do that. Do you know why? Because they do not exist yet, haha.
Err, Phantomio.
So, all the historical Spanish in South America, the Dutch merchants and the British east india company didn’t use sailing ships?
You’re kidding, right?
2 million Irish emigrants swam to USA across the atlantic in the 1840’s?Also, there are a number of enterprises who have in development electric and wind powered/assisted ships. Airbus being one. Ships are big. The weight of electric power storage isn’t such a problem as it is on air craft.
Phantomio: spambot, somewhat dysfunctional.
ET: Fairtransport.
Re Lapsed Agnostic’s nonsense suggestion the laws of thermodynamics can be ignored:-
[…] here’s a link about how to supply the entire world’s energy needs using renewable sources from the late Prof David Mackay of Cambridge University:
https://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_235.shtml
No it isn’t, as I have previously informed you!
“By my back-of-fag-packet calculations, there are around 12 trillion tonnes of neodymium the uppermost kilometre of the Earth’s non-oceanic crust – that’s around 1500 tonnes for every person on the planet. It’s a similar story for copper, cobalt & lithium.”
Q: WHERE DO YOU GET THE ENERGY TO REFINE THESE METALS?
A: more energy is needed than one can yield.“As I’ve previously informed you, petroleum diesel in mining equipment can be replaced with biodiesel. Around 10% of all the diesel currently sold in Europe for cars & trucks is biodiesel. It’s categorically *not* thermodynamically impossible for wind & solar to replace fossil fuels because every hour more energy arrives from the Sun than human beings use in a year. Renewables are currently being expanded at unprecedented rates. Of course, nuclear power can be used as a stopgap.”
More magic thinking.
Q: WHERE DO YOU GET THE ENERGY TO PLANT TRANSPORT & REFINE THESE PLANTS?
A: more energy is needed than one can yield.Please I give up until you answer these questions in an honest way.
