Warning: The Green New Deal Can’t Break The Laws Of Physics 7

Raw materials .... something to ponder ...

Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute brings up some important and valid points ...


If all that weren’t enough, there’s also the roughly 20 to 100-fold increase in land use that comes with using green machines to replace hydrocarbons. And, of course, there’s the mother’s milk of a Green New Deal, the trillions of dollars in subsidies, necessarily funded by increased costs and taxes for all consumers. The latter is no longer in dispute; instead those costs now seem to be a feature not a bug in Green New Deal proposals.

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

The Manhattan Institute is not an objective source of information on this topic, whatsoever.

That we've exceeded the planetary carrying capacity of the planet for the effluent of fossil burning is not in dispute among credible scientists. We've had 30 yrs to deny and bargain, which are stages of grief. Time to get on with making the transition. It won't be free, it will require compromises and change on an enormous scale. New inventions will make it easier and cheaper, but we won't get there until we decide that fossil carbon sources cost us too much to use, regardless how convenient they are. We need carbon pricing to deal with the negative externality which makes fossil fuels seem so tempting that we can't even imagine replacing them.

That's right, attack the source.

But I agree with part of your statement, moltenmetal, the part about "we've exceeded the planetary carrying capacity of" HUMANS. But we have to adapt, not attempt to redirect the inevitable at all cost.

I don't attack the source unless I've got good evidence ABOUT the source, which I do in this case. Every single thing the Manhattan Institute says about climate change should be taken with an appropriate measure of salt. I suggest that the required measure is closer to an excavator bucketful than to a pinch.

We humans are about to become the only species in the history of life to voluntarily limit our population below the instantaneous limits set by immediate resource availability, reproductive success, disease, predation etc. We should be proud of that fact- it didn't take a big die-off nor draconian 1 child policies to get there- just educating people, providing access to healthcare, providing access to birth control, and ensuring that children have a better chance of surviving into adulthood so fewer of them are required in poor countries as a de facto life insurance policy.

"Institute" gets it a 99.95% complete BS rating in my book. Somewhat correct, but we are currently at low efficiencies. Efficiencies are increasing.

Proud? Save proud for when you win the race. We have only just now realised the race started without us.

Population control is currently voluntary, but how long will it be before other factors start doing that job for us? Climate change migration is also a form of local population "control", but it has opposite effects on other localities. Climate change related spread of diseases and pandemics are other possibilities that we only barely understand.

Everything we do has limitations. That's what got us here. We now need to determine if the limits are caused by lack of knowledge, resources and money, i.e. mc[sup]2[/sup], because no society I know of has significantly reduced consumption of E. In fact, pretty much the opposite. And since E consumed is directly proportional to $GDP = k * E * R, R = Resources, k = conversion factor, ts pretty much destined to increase until E, R or k, approach 0.

No capitalist is thinking of voluntarily cutting $GDP. Supply of E, the most prominent climate change related variable, (primarily fossil fuels) has temporarily increased, mostly due to fracking, however it is still very much, if not even more so, limited. Fracked wells have accelerated production decline curves, so we have apparently extended our E supply curve a bit farther into the future, but we have also set it up for a hell of a fast and furious ride to E=0. The forced E-conversion point, when there will be only more limited and mostly less desirable options, currently coal, nuclear, or renewables. So, regardless of climate change, and given current opposition to the others, renewable energy sources will soon be essential one way or another.

It is not only a question of sourcing E.

Sourcing E is a choice that will not remain optional for much longer. It is pretty obvious that, while cheaper alternatives are available, we will take the fast and furious ride to oblivion. Gradually reducing $GDP, by for example a carbon tax, or carbon credit-purchasing scheme, or some other artifical means, potentially has the ability to achieve a smooth transition from the fossil-fueled economy. The only other alternatives currently involve rapid decline of $GDP and the associated total disruption of civilization in the process. If you think you have seen oil wars before, get ready for the mother of them all. Do you think that's alarmist? Do you think the major powers will just stand by and reduce $GDP voluntarily while tolerating "price extortion" from those that have. while it gets hotter and hotter. OK fine, but that has never happened before. I might suggest you do not have an understanding of the full implications of E=0. Why does that never enter the renewables conversation? Is it too far removed to follow that line of reasoning. A good deal of WWII was fought over E required to keep the machine running. Why is this situation different?

I keep hoping the eco-extremists reduce their energy use to the point the rest of us don't have to listen to their bassackwards logic nor continue to pay for their lobbying as we have for 50+ years. The simple fact of the matter is that we struggle to keep up with increasing demands for energy. We need every form of energy whether renewable or fossil fuel based. We also need all of those hydro dams the greenies successfully lobbied for the removal of in recent decades to "restore" nature.

Ultimately hokie is correct, the biggest cause of pollution worldwide is mankind and not due to our use of energy. Cities are simply naturally filthy environments due to high population densities and lack of vegetation. If we stopped running ICE vehicles in our cities tomorrow local pollution levels would increase, not decrease as a result. Blanket statements claiming all "credible scientists" believe oil to be some big bad boogie-man is just nonsense devoid of science leaving the rest of us to wonder if the speaker is devoid of knowledge or ethics.

Just one problem with wind power. Where do you get all the copper required for manufacturing wind turbines, when the greenies don't want you to mine it? Oh, and the steel (requiring coal) and the other stuff.

hokie, That's an interesting point, however why is your question significant. It implies that it is possible to generate more electricity using a lesser amount of copper and/or steel if using generators not powered by wind? Does any one type of generator use less less materials per Watt of rated capacity than any other?

My thinking is that a generator's material use is probably independent of whatever is used to drive them. I note that appears to definitely not be true of the driver being employed ,I.e. nuclear, natgas, gasoline, diesel, solar thermal sources, water turbines, etc. or wind turbines "propellers". I'm not sure, but I would think that composite, carbon fibre reinforced wind turbine blades might just be considerably more efficient users of copper and steel than a massive boiler, diesel and gasoline engines, or pretty much any other method that you could use to drive a generator.

Wind turbines have many disadvantages, but I doubt that overly inefficient use of copper or steel is one of them.

If think the issue is "unintended consequences". "Everybody" thinks electrical power is "green" 'cause it doesn't produce CO2 when the fuel is used. We're cutting down on the CO2 produced in creating the fuel (getting rid of coal burning power stations), ok, good. But there're a lot of hidden costs to "green" power … more copper for more grid (possibly a lot more grid if we have to transmit power for where it's produced to wherever it's needed) and generators and motors, rare earths and materials for batteries, etc. There's no easy solution.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Certainly a wind turbine project built 500 km from its demand location will need tons of wire, as would any type of power station, refinery, steel plant, or whatever put in the wrong place. It is a mistake and very misleading to consider a poor location a direct consequence or a disadvantage to wind turbines. It is however valid to consider those factors as detrimental to the project in question, but that falls under a concept very different than the one which was stated.

From where do you get anything, other than a headache, that doesn't ultimately trace back to an Earth resource?

I think most people that want alternative energy get that some mining might be involved. Don't confuse them with others that don't want a mine in their back yard, or drilling oil on the North Slope.

CWB1 said:

If we stopped running ICE vehicles in our cities tomorrow local pollution levels would increase, not decrease as a result.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that? There was a marked decrease in pollution haze early this year, when everyone was staying home.
Photos show impact of temporary air pollution drops across the world from coronavirus lockdown

If anything, non-point pollution from ICE vehicles is harder to reduce than point-source pollution from power plants charging EVs. The greater overall efficiency of EVs also plays a role.

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

The question of amount of material used to manufacture the generator itself vs it's electricity output is likely a utilization issue. A wind tower is incapable of running the generator anywhere near rated output capacity continuously, whereas a base load nuclear or gas plant is capable of doing that.

Material vs electrical output is a different question too, but an entirely valid point. I believe it is certainly a disadvantage of wind turbines. They virtually never come close to delivering their rated capacity and their average output decreases as the region of interest increases. I think it is however more related to site characteristics, as there would be no reason I know of that a WTG would not produce at rated capacity, if the wind velocity remained at design speed. It also fits with the larger area theory, as the larger the area if interest becomes, it would be reasonable to expect that more and more less favorable sites are included. I believe that WTG are extremely dependent on a near constant wind velocity and direction. Too much swivelling around and oblique angles of attack do not appear to be well considered when locating WTG projects. One thing that is clear in the data is that the average output to installed rated capacity decreases with area. I have found that for areas over 250,000 sq miles, average yearly output from WTGs varies between 12 to 21% of rated installed capacity, although evaluating WTGs in a smaller very favorable area can approach 50%. I personally have not evaluated any reaching higher ratios, but at least theoretically, they should exist, right?

Another related contemporary disadvantage to installing more WTGs is that all the "good sites", those with ideal wind and close to demand centers, have already been taken. Adding more capacity will come only at reduced output per W of future capacity installed, providing that all other variables remain equal.

There also must be lots of fossil fueled MW peak generators that do not have high percent utilisation ratios. There are some very large fossil fueled base load generating plants that are now shut down for years (Boston) due to alternative sources having priced that plant's total natgas fired capacity out of the market. Former customers are being required to pay for "standby".

No matter what the technology, when used inappropriately it is not going to do anybody any good, but that arguement should not be generalized and used to deride the technology itself.

The best point (that I've heard) about the Green New Deal is that we can't replace our current energy needs with magic unicorn farts. We need real, practical and perhaps incremental improvements in our carbon emissions.

1) Nuclear energy is carbon free. Produces less waste than burning coal. We need the climate alarmists to dramatically embrace nuclear power in order for us to make significant changes / improvements. This may take 20 years to get these plants built, so we need to start now.

2) We need to get replace our coal power plants ASAP. We don't have the capability to replace them with solar, wind or such now. But, if we were to replace them with combined cycle gas turbiness, that would be the biggest bang for the buck in terms of immediate CO2 emissions.

3) Solar and Wind have there place. But, they are much more expensive both in terms of cost to the consumer and cost per ton of CO2 reduction (probably, though I have to admit I haven't got the numbers). They also have extreme reliability issues that require other means of maintaining power for the grid.

There are plenty of other things we can do to incrementally improve things:
4) Higher fuel efficiency requirements for cars.

5) Taxes / Tariffs on imported goods that are produced in locations that use coal or such. These taxes could be used to pay for some of our green energy solutions.

6) There is an innovative (and partly successful) solar plant in California just this side of Nevada. The Ivanpah Solar Power facility. There are similar plants elsewhere in the western united states. But, what's neat about them is they use mirrors to reflect sunlight and heat up water to generate power via a traditional steam turbine. I say that it's only moderately successful because it's never generated as much power as they'd hoped. Plus, it uses natural gas to generate steam in the first part of the day. Making it more carbon reliant than we'd like.... Though it's still less than a third of the carbon emissions you'd get from a combined cycle gas turbine that generated a similar amount of power.

Why do I like #6 when it clearly still has flaws? Because it's much more scalable than rooftop arrays and wind. I can see efficiencies improving at some point. You create a plant that has BOTH combined cycle gas turbines and this type of reflective solar based steam generation and you might have a great reduction in CO2 that still provides power at night and during cloudy days and such.

What's the recycling rate for copper? If it is anything like gold then processing it from ore now is admittedly a short term CO2 investment, but makes no odds in the long term.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

I'd add 7 Fund Fusion research.

Inside 1 I'd include develop novel powerplants that lessen the potential issues (of pressurised water reactors) and research other fuel sources (eg Thorium)

Ontario has already done 2. Europe too ? but not China ??

Sure 3 … renewables are "good", and very PC.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion !!

I have learned some things

Implementing alternative Energy systems and the "green New Deal" are massive complex issues with implications for all of society.

We all benefit when many diverse viewpoints can be examined and debated ...

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

rb1957 -

Excellent point!. Don't just build new nuclear plants, we also need to Fund research into making these plants run better and safer. That includes Fusion in a big way. If we can find a way to make Fusion feasible, then we (presumably) eliminate the biggest drawbacks with our current fision power plants.

Reduction of CO2 is not the only driver. We may be about to lose our golden egg. At this point every iron we have needs to be in the fire, because if it wasn't for development of horizontal drilling, fracking and other enhanced oil production tech, we'd have already gotten well used to $120-150/bbl, maybe even considering those prices a bargain. That new tech has extended petroleum's dominance for the time being, but there is no guarantee that it can continue forever, even without considering climate change related actions. Petroleum is still thought to be a finite resource, but regardless of if it is not limited in quantity, finding more of it and producing it economically is not trending in the most beneficial direction. Frankly IMO we've been pretty lucky that the tech came when it did and we only experienced marginal pains adapting to it and it worked so well that half the frackers are now declaring bankruptcy, which is another problem. We'll have to see how far that has to go yet. We thought the jig was up a few times before, but managed to drill our way out of it, however it is certainly not getting any easier. This is BP's current world production status and projection to 2030. Anything can happen after that and most of it ain't good. It suggests to me that beginning right now we should be squeezing every rock we can find, sharpening every tool in the box, and forging every alternate technology we can think of before we have to light the burners with coal to gasoil again. If you think that development costs of all that will be excessive and will deduct too much from GDP, wait until there is next to nothing of GDP left to do it with and we'll be lighting bush fires by rubbing two sticks together again. The golden egg is getting smaller and smaller.

I thought that we were possibly getting short on cheap (accessible) petroleum, but that there was plenty of oil in the ground (even at wells we're no longer using) 'cause it's "hard to get at". Fracking may well be a short term boon, I hope the future judges us well on it … pumping a soup of nasty stuff into (ok, close to) our water supply sounds problematic. In any case we have large reserves of shale oil (yes, more expensive than other sources but much better than nothing … 'cept perhaps if you're living in the area).

I herd long ago that the petro-chem folks were saying that petroleum stocks should be reserved for them, 'cause if we run out of plastic stock materials we're really screwed. Funny how we all view the world from our own corner !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?