There are plausible criticisms, but the idea that it is simply not possible to power the world with solar, nuclear other renewables and battery is absurd.
Most of his arguments seem to be against wind, where his arguments are strongest.
First, unsubsidized solar is the absolute cheapest form of energy for most of the world right now. While there are regions of the world this won't work well, solar is the energy source to beat right now.
Next, the physics is against him most energy is basically fusion (in the sun) -> solar collectors -> biomass -> petroleum. Each phase incurs losses, so using solar now is much better than letting the sun grow things and waiting thousands of years for us to use it in oil (which is the natural implication of what he is stating). Directly getting energy from fusion is better, but we aren't there yet (hopefully soon).
Solar has a reverse economies of scale problem: the more we build, the bigger the fraction of power comes from solar, the more urgent the issue of storage becomes.
We should keep building until it becomes a problem, I suppose, but also hopefully prepare solutions before it hits.
> All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?
None of the problems claimed to affect Germany are applicable to Kenya. Indeed, the lack of existing infrastructure in Kenya probably tips the balance way in favor of renewables, using localized power generation rather than centralized and the massive grid projects Germany is claimed to be having problems with. You can bootstrap power in remote regions much easier with renewables by plonking down a few solar cells and a battery, and it scales right down to a single cell tower. Unlike fossil fuel, where you need an energy grid or trucking in fuel.
And are renewable energy plants still killing more birds than alternatives? I thought that argument lost validity about 30 years ago and is now just a bullshit flag?
Sorry about Germany if the problems are true. In other parts of the rich western world things are going fine and in a few regions 100% renewable and exporting power. Suggest to the author to learn from the successes, not just the failures.
Cats do kill a shocking number of small birds and other mammals. A conservative estimate is somewhere around 7 billion a year, and that's just in the United States. I have 4 cats myself but they never go outside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
Your statement is true - glass skyscrapers kill more birds than wind turbines.
What if the number of wind turbines was equivalent to the number of glass buildings? Would your statement hold true?
Or, a child comment makes a remark about house-cats killing more birds than wind turbines. What if the number of wind turbines was equivalent to the number of house-cats?
You're not comparing like-to-like. If you're recommending scaling the number of wind turbines greatly (to combat climate change), you should instead consider a metric like ' number of birds killed per turbine per year' like 'number of birds killed per glass building per year' to at least get to the data.
An incredible article. The author pulls out all the emotional stops against some environmentally conscious elite he dislikes:
> Heidegger, like much of the conservation movement, would have hated what the Energiewende has become: an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities.
> Opposition to renewables comes from the country peoples that Heidegger idolized as more authentic and “grounded” than urbane cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as signs of virtue.
And yet, in an entire article written about a country’s investments in clean energy, there’s not a single mention of climate change, carbon emissions, or any of the reasons why I at least thought we were fighting to keep the fossil fuels in the ground.
And the author’s grand data-backed argument, showing why renewables are forever doomed?
> But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.
He places us on a playing field of energy per unit area, which could likely win the title of least useful metric of the year.
I think everyone agrees there is a lot to be criticized and learned from with the Energiewende, but the axes on which this article analyzes it make no sense.
A bit of US historical perspective. In the 1970s, the OPEC energy crisis prompted the Feds to push for renewables in a big way. The talk at the time about its environment benefits were probably one of the first examples of greenwashing. The push for conservation probably made a bigger environment impact with efficiency improvements in cars and the like.
The real concern was reliable access to energy and robustness of the economy to shocks caused by oil/gas disruptions. Energy independence for the US, and secondarily for US allies. Has been and continues to be the de facto US government’s top priority in energy policy AFAIK. You can see that sustained support reflected in the continual incremental performance improvement in solar and wind tech. That sort of thing happens with major tech commitments over many years. Solar and wind are the “hyperlocal organic food-secure produce” of energy technologies, as long as manufacturing remains onshore.
Renewables were never envisioned to be the major energy source. Nice if they were, from a government standpoint, but more important was they could play a significant role in an robust energy portfolio. The Feds had and have a position of energy technology agnosticism modulo regional politics with oil/gas and the like. Market share grows and shrinks over the years, but a diverse portfolio means you always have enough, important for those who lived through the oil price shocks of the 1970s and 1980s.
> Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells....
And the 'poor physics' (???) of that 'land-intensive' solution can use land that's worthless for anything else ... which describes much of the planet's surface.
As opposed to fracking in people's backyards? Earthquakes, well-poisoning? Is there anything Forbes won't print?
Seems like it's a consumer society built on cheap oil over the recent century which is not meant to be powered by renewables.
Civilization itself is continuing to gain on a scale of millennia from progress in renewables, now seemingly at somewhat of an exponential growth phase.
22 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 22.8 ms ] threadMost of his arguments seem to be against wind, where his arguments are strongest.
First, unsubsidized solar is the absolute cheapest form of energy for most of the world right now. While there are regions of the world this won't work well, solar is the energy source to beat right now.
Next, the physics is against him most energy is basically fusion (in the sun) -> solar collectors -> biomass -> petroleum. Each phase incurs losses, so using solar now is much better than letting the sun grow things and waiting thousands of years for us to use it in oil (which is the natural implication of what he is stating). Directly getting energy from fusion is better, but we aren't there yet (hopefully soon).
We should keep building until it becomes a problem, I suppose, but also hopefully prepare solutions before it hits.
None of the problems claimed to affect Germany are applicable to Kenya. Indeed, the lack of existing infrastructure in Kenya probably tips the balance way in favor of renewables, using localized power generation rather than centralized and the massive grid projects Germany is claimed to be having problems with. You can bootstrap power in remote regions much easier with renewables by plonking down a few solar cells and a battery, and it scales right down to a single cell tower. Unlike fossil fuel, where you need an energy grid or trucking in fuel.
And are renewable energy plants still killing more birds than alternatives? I thought that argument lost validity about 30 years ago and is now just a bullshit flag?
Sorry about Germany if the problems are true. In other parts of the rich western world things are going fine and in a few regions 100% renewable and exporting power. Suggest to the author to learn from the successes, not just the failures.
Wind turbines? 28,000
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/...
page 10ish
Feral cats seem to be a particular danger to little critters.
What if the number of wind turbines was equivalent to the number of glass buildings? Would your statement hold true?
Or, a child comment makes a remark about house-cats killing more birds than wind turbines. What if the number of wind turbines was equivalent to the number of house-cats?
You're not comparing like-to-like. If you're recommending scaling the number of wind turbines greatly (to combat climate change), you should instead consider a metric like ' number of birds killed per turbine per year' like 'number of birds killed per glass building per year' to at least get to the data.
And yet, in an entire article written about a country’s investments in clean energy, there’s not a single mention of climate change, carbon emissions, or any of the reasons why I at least thought we were fighting to keep the fossil fuels in the ground.
And the author’s grand data-backed argument, showing why renewables are forever doomed? > But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.
He places us on a playing field of energy per unit area, which could likely win the title of least useful metric of the year.
I think everyone agrees there is a lot to be criticized and learned from with the Energiewende, but the axes on which this article analyzes it make no sense.
Click through to the rest of his work. I would be astounded to learn he isn't receiving a paycheck from an exxon-funded think tank.
The real concern was reliable access to energy and robustness of the economy to shocks caused by oil/gas disruptions. Energy independence for the US, and secondarily for US allies. Has been and continues to be the de facto US government’s top priority in energy policy AFAIK. You can see that sustained support reflected in the continual incremental performance improvement in solar and wind tech. That sort of thing happens with major tech commitments over many years. Solar and wind are the “hyperlocal organic food-secure produce” of energy technologies, as long as manufacturing remains onshore.
Renewables were never envisioned to be the major energy source. Nice if they were, from a government standpoint, but more important was they could play a significant role in an robust energy portfolio. The Feds had and have a position of energy technology agnosticism modulo regional politics with oil/gas and the like. Market share grows and shrinks over the years, but a diverse portfolio means you always have enough, important for those who lived through the oil price shocks of the 1970s and 1980s.
No citations, so take it for what it’s worth...
> Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells....
And the 'poor physics' (???) of that 'land-intensive' solution can use land that's worthless for anything else ... which describes much of the planet's surface.
As opposed to fracking in people's backyards? Earthquakes, well-poisoning? Is there anything Forbes won't print?
Civilization itself is continuing to gain on a scale of millennia from progress in renewables, now seemingly at somewhat of an exponential growth phase.