The lie that is Green Energy

[Jinentonix]

I think that you may be just making up "facts," and ignoring others that get in the way of your position. Let's take the area of the world needed to supply wind energy. "At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms." In actual fact if wind turbines were used exclusively for energy they would require an area of the world equal to about half of Alaska. Given the fact that wind turbines can be placed almost anywhere, even offshore, there is more than enough room for them. And then there is the fact that is the last 30 years wind turbines have increased in efficiency to the point where they currently produce 15 times the energy of a wind turbine in 1980. I don't expect technological improvements in wind and solar to slow down.

You missed the point AND made a serious error. First off, you assumed the land use area is for current wind production when I CLEARLY stated that in order to meet growing yearly demand we would have to build 350,000 2MW turbines per year. The land use figures isn't for current wind power generation, it's an extrapolation based on ever increasing demand. IN other words, if we were to meet the increasing demand by utilizing wind power only, it would require land space equivalent to the British Isles every year. The serious error you made was thinking about coastal areas. Which is great but there's a problem. If you don't live near those coastal areas, wind power is pointless to the point of almost being useless. I'll explain when I address your solar power point. Furthermore, we're pretty much approaching the limit of wind power technology. The tech isn't the issue, the issue is trying to draw energy from a slow moving fluid that is constantly changing speed. And one more point on land use. The Bruce Nuclear plant until recently was the largest capacity NPP in the world (It's still #2 though). Bruce stands on about 2 square km of land. Ontario's wind capacity is about half that of Bruce but takes up ten times the land space.

The same is true for solar energy. An area the size of Spain could supply enough solar power for the entire world. However, we don't have to cover Spain or any other nation with solar panels considering the fact that so many areas of the world are desert. The Sahara alone could supply the world with electricity many times over.

Mmmmm Not really. Ever heard of Ohm's Law or Inverse Square Law? When it comes to BASE-LOAD generation, for every 100 miles electricity travels there is a 2% transmission loss. That doesn't include losses when the lines switch from transmission to distribution. Since wind and solar do not provide the kind of base-load generation that traditional power supplies do, the losses are more noticeable. The other issue is that while in theory there are places that could power the entire world via solar power, from a practical standpoint, it's not only impossible but extremely dangerous. North America is divided into 16 separate power grids. This is done for two reasons. 1)To reduce transmission loss by not having to transmit power thousands of miles. And even more importantly 2) Security. If one grid goes down, the entire continent isn't blacked out.

Currently, as you point out, wind and solar cannot match conventional sources of energy in total output, but do not expect it to stay that way.

It will. Don't confuse capacity for output. There's a world of difference.

In 2015 green energy grew by 8% worldwide.

And how much of it was actually wind and solar? And guess what? Even with that 8% increase wind and solar STILL account for less than 1% of the global energy needs.

Continued growth at that rate would see its use double and then quadruple and then double again in less than 30 years. But that would be ignoring nations like India and China where green energy production is proceeding much more quickly.

So basically after 30 years a whopping 12%, give or take, of the global power supply will come from so-called "green energy". Wowee. I wonder how much arable farmland we'll have to give up for this 12% total.
India Launches Massive Push for Clean Power, Lighting, and Cars

India Launches Massive Push for Clean Power, Lighting, and Cars

And then there is your comment on resource use for green energy which conveniently ignores the environmental damage created by the to production of coal and oil. If there is a dirtier industry than either of these two I don't know of it.

Go to China. At least 20% of their farmland has been made toxic by mining and refining elements for batteries. Better yet, go to Inner Mongolia where you can enjoy a nice toxic and radioactive nightmare as they mine and refine rare earth elements for batteries for the so-called "green energy" industry.
As for "my comment", you missed the point. Calling wind and solar "green tech" is a lie, pure and simple. I never suggested that coal and gas aren't dirty industries either. I just find it amusing that so-called "green energy" relies so heavily on coal and gas for its existence.
Think about it for a moment. Your green energy dream can't exist with heavy dependence on coal, oil and gas.

If that still doesn't convince you, here's a good read from the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) which has more updated figures on fossil fuel usage for wind power. My figures were assuming 2MW towers but now we're into the 5MW towers apparently, so these are more relevant figures.
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil - IEEE Spectrum

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Go to China. At least 20% of their farmland has been made toxic by mining and refining elements for batteries. Better yet, go to Inner Mongolia where you can enjoy a nice toxic and radioactive nightmare as they mine and refine rare earth elements for batteries for the so-called "green energy" industry.

Your concern for the good people of China and Inner Mongolia is touching.

 

[MHz]

Michigan is closer and just as bad.

 

[Jinentonix]

Your concern for the good people of China and Inner Mongolia is touching.

Isn't it though?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Isn't it though?

It is, yeah. I'm sure you cry yourself to sleep every night worrying about them.

 

[Jinentonix]

It is, yeah. I'm sure you cry yourself to sleep every night worrying about them.

Not every night. Sometimes I fall asleep thinking about buckwheat pancakes.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Not every night. Sometimes I fall asleep thinking about buckwheat pancakes.

MMMmmm. . . pancakes.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Funny how you leave the largest power producer out of the equation . Hydro electric is the largest producer of electricity yet it is never mentioned in any of your posts . Why is that ?

Because it is already green. Didn't you know that?

However, I prefer describing wind and solar for several reasons. First it is a relatively new source of energy. Second its tech is improving rapidly. Third, it cost much less to install than hydro. Fourth, it can be installed almost anywhere compared to hydro, which needs a source of water. Also, I am aware that Canada is one of the greenest nations in the world thanks to hydro. Is that enough for you?

BTW hydro is not the largest power producer. Fossil fuels are.

You missed the point AND made a serious error. First off, you assumed the land use area is for current wind production when I CLEARLY stated that in order to meet growing yearly demand we would have to build 350,000 2MW turbines per year. The land use figures isn't for current wind power generation, it's an extrapolation based on ever increasing demand. IN other words, if we were to meet the increasing demand by utilizing wind power only, it would require land space equivalent to the British Isles every year. The serious error you made was thinking about coastal areas. Which is great but there's a problem. If you don't live near those coastal areas, wind power is pointless to the point of almost being useless. I'll explain when I address your solar power point. Furthermore, we're pretty much approaching the limit of wind power technology. The tech isn't the issue, the issue is trying to draw energy from a slow moving fluid that is constantly changing speed. And one more point on land use. The Bruce Nuclear plant until recently was the largest capacity NPP in the world (It's still #2 though). Bruce stands on about 2 square km of land. Ontario's wind capacity is about half that of Bruce but takes up ten times the land space.

Mmmmm Not really. Ever heard of Ohm's Law or Inverse Square Law? When it comes to BASE-LOAD generation, for every 100 miles electricity travels there is a 2% transmission loss. That doesn't include losses when the lines switch from transmission to distribution. Since wind and solar do not provide the kind of base-load generation that traditional power supplies do, the losses are more noticeable. The other issue is that while in theory there are places that could power the entire world via solar power, from a practical standpoint, it's not only impossible but extremely dangerous. North America is divided into 16 separate power grids. This is done for two reasons. 1)To reduce transmission loss by not having to transmit power thousands of miles. And even more importantly 2) Security. If one grid goes down, the entire continent isn't blacked out.

It will. Don't confuse capacity for output. There's a world of difference. And how much of it was actually wind and solar? And guess what? Even with that 8% increase wind and solar STILL account for less than 1% of the global energy needs. So basically after 30 years a whopping 12%, give or take, of the global power supply will come from so-called "green energy". Wowee. I wonder how much arable farmland we'll have to give up for this 12% total.
India Launches Massive Push for Clean Power, Lighting, and Cars

India Launches Massive Push for Clean Power, Lighting, and Cars

Go to China. At least 20% of their farmland has been made toxic by mining and refining elements for batteries. Better yet, go to Inner Mongolia where you can enjoy a nice toxic and radioactive nightmare as they mine and refine rare earth elements for batteries for the so-called "green energy" industry.
As for "my comment", you missed the point. Calling wind and solar "green tech" is a lie, pure and simple. I never suggested that coal and gas aren't dirty industries either. I just find it amusing that so-called "green energy" relies so heavily on coal and gas for its existence.
Think about it for a moment. Your green energy dream can't exist with heavy dependence on coal, oil and gas.

If that still doesn't convince you, here's a good read from the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) which has more updated figures on fossil fuel usage for wind power. My figures were assuming 2MW towers but now we're into the 5MW towers apparently, so these are more relevant figures.
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil - IEEE Spectrum

No, you are still missing the point.

Your data on the loss of power is not relevant, since green energy sources such as wind and solar can be placed almost anywhere. Germany and other nations have proven this. Thus it can easily be tied into existing electrical grids or can be established in regions that have no electrical grid at all. Villages in various parts of Africa are already profiting from this fact. Also wind farms in agricultural areas show that they can easily be integrated into the landscape with little effect on agriculture. Of course wind farms use a lot of space, but that isn't a problem if they are built in areas that isn't really being used for anything else. Additionally, the giant towers that are the usual image of wind power aren't the only way to utilize the wind. Smaller wind generators are in the works, some of them that could be installed on top of a building or even a farmyard or village.

Next, the article you posted from the Spectrum ignores the fact that the same statement could be made about the building of coal and oil fired power plants. They all need steel, concrete, and other building material so they have no advantage over wind or solar. In addition, the extraction of oil and coal is extremely damaging environmentally and requires the same sort of burning of fossils fuels green energy is criticized for using.

Also, I very much suspect that your data on China's farmland being damaged by mining for elements for batteries is complete BS. It sounds more like spin from people opposed to green energy than actual fact. Most of the lithium mined in China comes from Tibet, an area that by Chinese standards is almost uninhabited and not a major farming region. Additionally, there are large deposits of lithium in other regions of the world, including the state of Nevada.

And finally, lithium batteries may not be the only answer. Numerous other batteries are being researched, several of which use no lithium at all.

BTW, nowhere in any of my posts have I ever indicated that I think green energy will replace fossil fuel use anytime in the next few decades. It will be a long gradual process, but it will happen simply because green tech now has two advantages over fossil fuels. One, it is cleaner and two, it is now cheaper and will no doubt become even cheaper in the future.

 

[petros]

It would make no sense to tax a crown corp. If a crown corp makes a profit, the profits go to the crown. If it were taxed, the taxes would go to the crown, and the lower income would go...to the crown.

Or you sell a Crown like Hydro One so it can be taxed by municipalities, the Province and the Feds.

https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gov-gouv/agent-mandataire/agent-mandataire-eng.asp

No, you are still missing the point.

Your data on the loss of power is not relevant, since green energy sources such as wind and solar can be placed almost anywhere.

Would you trust wind and solar to power a hospital? Did you know most hospitals have their own fossil fuel run power plants? Why do you think that is?

No, solar and wind can't be plunked down anywhere. How well would solar work in Yellowknife in January?

Do you think you can get 24hr supply of energy from 3 hours of winter sun?

Wind requires topography and climate conducive to consistently whirl a whirlygig. Not everywhere is windy. Some places are even too windy.

Winter in Vancouver is even piss poor getting sufficient sunshine to get 11 Volts let alone the 13.5 needed to charge a battery and it's not a very breezy region.

At best solar and wind can augment supply of the grid.

If solar and wind were reliable the Feds would have put wind and solar on every remote Rez in Canada instead of spending huge cash on ice roads and even flying diesel in for generators by the barrel.

It won't be long before LNG is trucked in, flown in or CNG piped in to run internal combustion engine driven generators.

Having suffient reliable power is a matter of life and death beyond the grid. It's not a whimsical existence of " ah well, maybe it will be sunny and windy by Friday and we can heat the house, go to school and go to work for a few hours" kind of world.

Use your head Smurfette and think about the big picture.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Would you trust wind and solar to power a hospital? Did you know most hospitals have their own fossil fuel run power plants? Why do you think that is?

No, solar and wind can't be plunked down anywhere. How well would solar work in Yellowknife in January?

Do you think you can get 24hr supply of energy from 3 hours of winter sun?

Wind requires topography and climate conducive to consistently whirl a whirlygig. Not everywhere is windy. Some places are even too windy.

Winter in Vancouver is even piss poor getting sufficient sunshine to get 11 Volts let alone the 13.5 needed to charge a battery and it's not a very breezy region.

At best solar and wind can augment supply of the grid.

If solar and wind were reliable the Feds would have put wind and solar on every remote Rez in Canada instead of spending huge cash on ice roads and even flying diesel in for generators by the barrel.

It won't be long before LNG is trucked in, flown in or CNG piped in to run internal combustion engine driven generators.

Having suffient reliable power is a matter of life and death beyond the grid. It's not a whimsical existence of " ah well, maybe it will be sunny and windy by Friday and we can heat the house, go to school and go to work for a few hours" kind of world.

Use your head Smurfette and think about the big picture.

Of course I would trust wind and solar to power a hospital, because we already are. Where do you think the energy goes that is generated by wind and solar goes now?

As for using solar in northern regions, no you wouldn't. But there is no reason why wind energy would not work.

Green energy can easily be made reliable, as a matter of fact a fix has already been worked out for it and it is quite simple. In the case of wind power for example all that has to be done is to have enough wind generators to insure that some of them will be working. So far as I know there has never been a day when the wind wasn't blowing somewhere.

I have always made it clear in my posts that green energy will come from a variety of power sources. Some areas will use wind, others solar, and others geothermal and so on.

As I have mentioned repeatedly in my posts, and I hope by now that you would have gotten the message, wind and solar will take over not only because they do not have the ugly side effects of oil and coal, but because they are now cheaper. Simple economics will convince consumers and providers that green energy is the way to go. Don't worry about your precious oil and coal industry though. The change to green energy will take at least three decades. They will have plenty of time to adapt.

BTW your reference to reserves makes no sense. We are talking about a series of governments that didn't even bother to provide safe drinking water and sewer systems. You can hardly expect them to place innovative tech on a reserve. But here is an article that might make you happy.
Alberta First Nation communities jumping on ‘solar revolution’


Alberta First Nation communities jumping on 'solar revolution' - APTN NewsAPTN News

I'm sure you are partly right about natural gas, but it too is a carboniferous fuel and its extraction is environmentally destructive.

BTW weakening your post with name-calling doesn't do you much credit. I would avoid it if you want to be taken seriously.