Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

Why would it be any more toxic than a car fire?

 

It's obvious that the future of transportation is headed towards fossil fuel independence. It is not obvious to me, looking solely at investment opportunities, that charging stations for EV's comes with little risks. IMO we might be seeing the 'tip of the iceberg' for another 50-100 years. To repeat again, I'm 100% for whatever technologies of the future that will reduce oil consumption and harmful emissions...

 

The International Energy Agency published its World Energy Outlook this week, its annual effort at revising assessments of future demand for and supply of fuels and electricity. There’s a familiar theme within it: The IEA expects more renewable-energy use in the future than it did in last year’s outlook, which was more than it forecast in the 2016 outlook. There’s also something noteworthy on transportation: The IEA is calling the top on oil demand from cars.

According to the report:

Oil use for cars peaks in the mid-2020s, but petrochemicals, trucks, planes and ships still keep overall oil demand on a rising trend. Improvements in fuel efficiency in the conventional car fleet avoid three-times more in potential demand than the 3 million barrels per day (mb/d) displaced by 300 million electric cars on the road in 2040.

It’s noteworthy when a long-term projection calls the top on demand for something as fundamental as a component of global oil demand. But demand for oil consumed for transportation is already waning in certain markets and segments.

One place is in buses. Electric buses will displace about 233,000 barrels of oil demand a day by the end of the year. Add in the much smaller displacement from electric cars, and there’s 279,000 barrels a day displaced — about as much oil as Greece consumes per day.

Another is Europe. As Bloomberg Intelligence’s Rob Barnett notes, the latest figures from Germany show demand for diesel fell 9 percent in the first half of the year. The influence of Green Party lawmakers will dent demand further.

Then there’s Italy, where demand for gasoline has fallen by nearly half since 2005.

Even if electric vehicles make up a very small part of the current displacement of oil demand, that will certainly grow. Bloomberg NEF expects twice as many electric vehicles on the road as the IEA does, and those vehicles will displace more than twice as much oil demand as the IEA expects.

 

How do you know what is the proper rate of natural climate change?

 

Cars don't have electrolytic capacitors that produce gobs of very toxic smoke when they burn.

 

The problem is that peak demand is taking place in OECD nations but not in most of the world, which consists of developing nations. The resources and energy needed to meet just their basic needs will be more than what the world can allow.

Meanwhile, middle class citizens in all countries, including industrialized ones, are counting on that demand (and more) to be met, because that's the only they will get their higher wages, returns on investment, and other benefits.

That means not only will they need more electric vehicles and renewable energy components but also more cars, buses, trucks, construction equipment, container ships, etc., especially given infrastructure such as roads, electricity grids, and more that also have to be developed.

The demand is so high that capitalists are probably frothing at the mouth, imagining the incredible profits that can be made by meeting it. Too bad the limitations of the planet won't allow it.

 

That's good.

I don't place a lot of faith in carbon sequestration. I think it's a pipe dream.

The extractive industries have been peddling the idea for the better part of twenty years, and hav almost no progress to show for it. Around the world, so far as I know, there are plans for two plants.

But the one the industry heralded in the US turned out to be an expensive boondoggle.

https://arstechnica.com/information...emper-power-plant-suspends-coal-gasification/

In the same interval, the cost and market share of wind and solar dropped by more than half, and more than doubled respectively.

In the last two years, between 90 and 100% of all new electric generating capacity has come from renewables. Natural gas represents about half the new growth overall, but it largely offsets coal, nuclear and older gas plants that are being retired.

As these technologies continue to improve rapidly, they are having less trouble attracting investors. And now that battery prices are getting closer to the point where they can be installed and used as mass storage on virtually any scale, the industry will move in that direction. They have already moved away from their traditional model of large central power plants. Wall Street no longer wants to be on the hook for fifty years for the laarge scale environmental problem of tomorrow. Battery farms will invert the economic of renewables too. No longer will they only be able to sell when the sun shines or the wind blows. With battery farms, they can store power generated any time and sell it at peak prices, inverting the earnings model for renewables.

It isn't just about global warming. It's really about changing the entire business model of the electric power industry.

It is actually easier in the third world, where there are no powerful interests invested in protecting the value of expensive fixed assets.

People all over Africa have phones now, even though most countries don't have much of a telephone system.

And solar has gotten cheap enough that small panels produce enough energy to light homes and charge phones for millions, whetting the apetite for more (much in the same way that windmill powered generators once provided just enough juice for a farmer to be able to play the radio in the evenings in the US three quarters of a century ago).

This is the reason why large central power plant, and technologies like advanced nuclear and carbon sequestration don't have much of a future. The industry and its investors are running away from high fixed costs. (that's part of the stampede to natural gas, too. Gas plants are cheap to build and very scalable).

 

The way the mobile phone put communications and services such as banking into the hands of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world, points the way to how renewable energy will lead to the development of a renewable infrastructure in these parts of the world.

Already, China is resolved to end its dependence in fossil fuels over time.

You don't have to build an expensive grid or a network of large expensive central power plants all burning fuel in order to meet this demand, once solar, wind and batteries become cheap enough.

The same thing that happened with cellular communications will happen with electricity as well.

 

Adapt is going to become a keyword for humanity

The mechanism self regulates itself as best as it can

I'm a firm believer that sustainable material industries will grow tremendously

If we could grow concrete out of plant think how much carbon we could lock up

Yes it would be ironic if we started building wooden bridges again. But the steel tariffs provide inspiration

 

>
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

"The Planet" does not need saving, it will be fine.....US, not so much.

 

Here’s a truth: manmade or not; the climate will always change..and the creative power of man will always make it work for his benefit.

The creative mind doesn’t adapt to nature, the creative makes nature adapt to his wishes.

I welcome year around growing seasons; and swimming in my backyard pool in the middle of January in Minot, North Dakota. What’s to worry, and what’s not to like?

 

In which case this imaginary "creative mind" is doomed to extinction given that it has lost the ability to adapt to a changing environment.

If ND does because warm enough to swim year round the rest of the Continental USA will be a barren desert where no crops will ever grow. There might well be alligators, snakes and other reptiles enjoying your pool under those conditions but there won't be many people left since they will all have starved to death for lack of food.

 

Ironically (perhaps) it will be those with mental limitations and minimal imagination that will be unprepared for and suffer the most profound impacts of this.

 

Which is exactly why I used quotes around the term "creative mind".

 

Hmmm... ok. just as an example, how "sustainable" is the use of cobalt? or Silver, or any other dependent metal? More, Did it occur to you that concrete already does use plant material that is bound, ie limestone... It just kills me that folks like you would raze the forests because you don't understand the ecosystem or how it works....

 

And you do?

Sustainability has nothing to do with mineral extraction and limestone has no more plant material than most materials....It may be that you do not quite understand the concept.

 

but would there not be a benefit and absorbing carbon dioxide and putting it into our building materials

Limestone is old locked up carbon

 

I do, actually. Honestly, do you keep a straight face when you write stuff like this? Mineral extraction that is necessary for non fossil fuel mitigation doesn't have to be sustainable? Laughable. And I did. Also, do you not understand what calcium carbonate means? Where do you suppose the carbonate comes from exactly? Again laughable. But thanks for the laugh....

 

Population growth and more demand on our resources certainly will become greater issues in the future. Government and industry are keenly aware of this path and both are taking baby-steps to better deal with this potential. But it takes lots of time, like decades, to make paradigm shifts and everyone whines as they perceive changes/losses to the economy. Capitalism will always satisfy demand as long as it is a viable venture...

 

It is clear that you have an interesting understanding of geology and the formation of deposits. I suppose if we go back far enough and bend the dynamics of strata/mineral formation then anything can be attributed in some way to anything. Calcium Carbonate however has very little to do with plants and limestone even less.

 

Unfortunately, time is a commodity in short supply going forward for this issue.

 

Nice comments...I've always advocated that it's best to generate energy as close as possible to the demand. I don't have a huge issue with nuclear but instead of mega-billion$ facilities why not scaled down to the size of a reactor on a Navy ship serving a few city blocks? Similarly a room of batteries can supply energy to a few city blocks. But when it comes to hydroelectric, and because of droughts and water shortages, I'm okay with large civil projects to store water and generate electricity...including hydroelectric generators in all of our main rivers. Don't know how much geothermal energy is available but we need to tap into all of it. Renewables won't be 100% of the energy solution, but if they can become 50% or 75% of our energy then this is great! I'm also wondering if Edison was right about DC current? Should we be converting much of our AC demand to DC power?

 

Who cares about tomorrow when we can party today? Being aware and proactive are not at the top of American's minds today...or any day...

 

Agreed...a bit like who cares if you drink too much Tequila when you have terminal cancer.

 

Laughable...
"Carbon dioxide is an atmospheric constituent that plays several vital roles in the environment. It is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation heat in the atmosphere. It plays a crucial role in the weathering of rocks. It is the carbon source for plants. It is stored in biomass, organic matter in sediments, and in carbonate rocks like limestone."

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

Now... don't you feel silly...