It’s summer. It’s hot. And once again, we are hearing from the usual suspects that we must change our entire way of living. Repent, they say. Carbon dioxide emissions are killing Mother Earth. Give up hydrocarbons and embrace renewable energy.
Doing so, we’re assured, will result in a gentler climate and myriad other benefits, including scads of “green” jobs. Sounds easy, no?
Alas, no matter how much they may wish it to be so, the proponents of alternatives — and better yet, “clean” energy — cannot overcome the problem of scale. A simple bit of math shows that even with the rapid expansion that solar and wind-energy capacity have had in the past few years, those two sources cannot even meet incremental global demand for electricity, much less make a dent in the world’s insatiable thirst for coal, oil, and natural gas. Indeed, had any of the myriad advocates for renewable energy bothered to use a simple calculator, they would see that their favored sources simply cannot provide the vast scale of energy needed by the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, at a price that can be afforded.
Consider this: between 1985 and 2011, global electricity generation increased by about 450 terawatt-hours per year. That’s the equivalent of adding about one Brazil (which used 485 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2010) to the electricity sector every year. And the International Energy Agency expects global electricity use to continue growing by about one Brazil per year through 2035.
How much solar would be needed to produce 450 terawatt-hours per year? Well, Germany has more installed solar-energy capacity that any other country, with some 25,000 megawatts of installed photovoltaic panels. In 2011, those panels produced 18 terawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s total installed base, and it would have to do so every year.
Let me repeat that: just to meet the world’s increasing demand for electricity — while not displacing any existing electricity-production facilities — the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as what now exists in Germany. And it would have to achieve that daunting task every year.
The scale problem is equally obvious when it comes to wind. In fact, wind-energy’s scale problems are even more thorny because wind energy requires so much land.
Germany is serious about solar as shown here.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/#comment-36911
” they would see that their favored sources simply cannot provide the vast scale of energy needed by the world’s 7 billion inhabitants”
They know this. Why do you think there’s all this constant chatter about killing off half the world’s population? The misanthropic neo Malthusians want us all dead so they can then live “naturally” (sic) and Mother Gaia will then breath a sigh of relief.
Zactly. Wind turbine generated synfuels is viable . . . after you murder 6,000,000,000 people.
There’s a lot of serious paranoia here.
If you want to be paranoid, how about thinking that the whole purpose of this site is to confuse the issue and prevent you from doing anything effective to deal with the problem.
Imagine that you’re in a theater and you smell smoke. But a guy stands up and tells you that it’s nothing serious and not to panic. As he speaks, his friends are quietly heading for the exits. By the time you sense that the guy is stringing you along so his buddies can get out, it will be too late for you.
If you think that’s crazy, study the history of big tobacco companies.
Reality is understanding that corporations are willing to kill you to make a profit.
A Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.
But Harold, we view you as the Judas goat. From where we sit it is you trying to harm the disadvantaged and the developing by strangling affordable energy and curtailing development. You are the one yelling “Fire!” without apparent justification.
Harold, you are creating strawmen here.
The central assumption that you are basing your argument on is that CO2 mitigation policies do no harm. This is demonstratably false. People are seriously hurt by policies that prevent the expansion of electricity. They are hurt worse by biofuels, where land use goes up, destroying the environment, and the food is burned as fuel, raising the prices. Wind power not only wastes time and money, leaving us poorer and with less ability to help others, but it also destabilizes the electrical grid with spikes on drops, leading to greater blackouts, brownouts, and increased wear and tear on our electrical system. Each of these has a body count associated with them.
To use your analogy, this is akin to a man seeing smoke and shouting fire in a theater and causing a stampede before taking the time to see if it is a fire or a jerk with a cigarette. People get killed that way.
And yet, while you dissemble, changes are happening.
I’m not yelling fire, I’m telling you to look out the window.
Two belief structures.
One helps me to predict the future, one does not.
Which would you choose?
To over-use my analogy, this is akin to a man seeing smoke and whispering to his friends to get out before anyone else notices, and to heck with everyone else..
One gives a false confidence in the future and declares a choice of actions and the other admits that we don’t know the future and warns us to not do anything that will be detrimental to humanity.
Are you truly believing in these conspiracy theories? Do you think that we would so willingly sacrifice our children for personal gain? Let me tell you this. I am an engineer, and I take my oath seriously. I would never harm someone for something so pathetic as money.
You have descended to outright ad-hominem, and I will not have it. Please apologize or leave.
I don’t really believe in any conspiracy. Human nature almost precludes them. People just can’t keep secrets.
“I would never harm someone for something so pathetic as money. ”
Yes. You would. You just don’t know it. Whether that is a willful ignorance or something else, the result is the same.
I won’t apologize, and I won’t leave. But I probably can’t get any of you to think, either. Oh well, it’s a hobby…
Just so you can sling vituperation more accurately, I teach math and life sciences. I have a military background in strategic intelligence analysis.
I am ultimately a pragmatist, I believe in what works.
I’m an optimist too, or I wouldn’t be here.