Renewable energy – not always sustainable

Recycling is possible (unlike with fossil/nuclear). So it is definitely possible to have a sustainable renewable energy infrastructure.
Since all renewable powerplants have lifetimes in excess of 20 years let's worry first about getting them up and running and then about creating the infrastructure for large scale recycling.
I
t certainly is important to think about these things, but slowing down the deployment of renewables is, in the current situation, not an option.

Recycling is possible (unlike with fossil/nuclear)

Everything is recyclable in theory, given enough energy and time, but we lack practical means to e.g. recycle reinforced concrete or glass fiber and other composites. We can only "downcycle" it into less valuable products like road beds. Old wind turbine blades and towers are simply chopped and shredded and buried in a landfill - you can't even burn it for energy because it creates tons of mineral slag and noxious gasses.

Nuclear power is actually more recyclable than things like wind turbines, because all the metals are recyclable and old reactor parts are recycled as we speak, and 96% of the fuel is re-usable. It uses several orders of magnitude less materials per kWh produced.

Most countries have simply made it illegal to recycle metals from nuclear reactors, and there exists double standards in the US/EU for radiation limits between nuclear and other industries.

Since all renewable powerplants have lifetimes in excess of 20 years

Again, in theory. Reality is different. Wind farm output declines markedly in use after 10-15 years:

http://www.offgri...turbines

For onshore wind, the monthly 'load factor' of turbines – a measure of how much electricity they generate as a percentage of how much they could produce if on at full power all the time - dropped from a high of 24 per cent in the first year after construction, to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

For offshore wind –examined only in Denmark where it has been used for longer - it declined even more dramatically from over 40 per cent at the start, to just 15 per cent after ten years.

He believes they become uneconomic after around 12 years. The decline in output was put down to wear and tear of the blades, and more frequent breakdowns for older turbines.

"Renewable energy technology can lead to reduced emission of greenhouse gases..."

but it is not happening in practice.
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed a worrying threshold"
https://www.techn...reshold/
"Other countries that have tried to go nuclear-free, most recently Germany, have faced increased fossil fuel use and rising emissions."
"Ministers say there's little chance of Europe's top economy switching off its coal plants for next two decades, despite raft of green policies"
http://www.reuter...CN12Q1IN

We not only need non fossil fuel sources, we must also reduce consumption and population to sustainable levels.

The writer is talking about fine-tuning the renewable systems, so even the materials which harvest the renewable power are recyclable themselves. You can certainly recycle most of the parts, unless they are from nukes.

And there are other batteries which do not use lithium. The larger ones may use flow technologies.

Efficiency. The only 100% renewable, zero-impact solution to the energy crisis is using less of it. By employing a smart grid and even home and business-level systems which simply turn lights off when not being used could go a long way. Also, more complex HVAC systems that could provide only the amount of heat/cold needed and at the appropriate times in the right rooms - modular systems. These are all things we can and should be doing, and regardless of how the energy is harvested we stand only to gain when we improve efficiency.

"Renewable energy technology can lead to reduced emission of greenhouse gases..."

but it is not happening in practice.

Electricity in Germany(wind&solar) Remains 6x More Carbon-Intensive than in France(carbon-free nuclear power)
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg

We not only need non fossil fuel sources, we must also reduce consumption and population to sustainable levels.

well, the next world war will at least solve the problem of how we can reduce the population to sustainable levels.
That just leaves us with only the other two problems.

Simple answer. Forget wind and solar for short term.

Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition. Also it takes more energy to make a wind turbine (it's various physical constituent parts) than it will ever produce over it's lifetime IIRC.

Fast reactors. Learn about them. Then you will see why they are the immediate answer.

Even so, can it be scaled fast enough.

Also all solar plants and wind plants are really hybrid plants. When the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowin'. The LNG's fire up....

If man simply says no because of stigma in spite of facts, then we deserve extinction no?

Simple answer. Forget wind and solar for short term.

Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition.

This would be one of the most expensive options in the short term. This may change in the future but, right now, wind is generally the cheapest source of power and nuclear the most expensive. (I have nothing in principle against nuclear )

Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition

These things are barely out of the study phase. The first prototype for study hasn't even been built. Never mind the second, improved prototype after that...and all the engineering work AFTER that to get this to a viable, commercial design, after which one could think about some reactors built by one company...and THEN one can think about a next generation ramp-up.

By the time these are up and running in any significant numbers the world could have transitioned to a full solar/wind/wave power infrastructure several times over.

It's more than energy flows. It's also complicated interconnected economic relationships. Though biofuels have been shown to be unsustainable and competitive with food crops - most people don't understand the entire limiting relationships involved.

Everyone agrees we need to get off fossil fuels, but they ignore the lack of alternative energy source that available now. Additionally, they don't get the economic relationships including the loss of economy-of-scales that shutting down the petroleum industry would cause (without equivalent economic petrochemical subsidies) - which supports the current prices of petro-chemicals - food prices that both 95% of global food production - as well pharmaceutical and many other petrochemical related production processes are absolutely dependent upon.

Additionally, assuming reaching sustainability without lowering our 6.5x human overpopulation simultaneously makes any sustainability outcome an impossible task to start with.

loss of economy-of-scales that shutting down the petroleum industry would cause

That loss would only be an issue if the infrastructure for the petroleum industry didn't exist. But it exists (in copious amounts). If anything the stuff will get cheaper because of massive overproduction as demand drops. The cost of pumping this stuff up, transporting, refining and distributing is so low that even with massive cutbacks in demand it is still very profitable.

The writer is talking about fine-tuning the renewable systems, so even the materials which harvest the renewable power are recyclable themselves. You can certainly recycle most of the parts, unless they are from nukes.

And there are other batteries which do not use lithium. The larger ones may use flow technologies.

A tank of saltwater can be a battery. Solar heat it during the day. Stirling engines collect the heat overnight...

Eikka in his post at the very beginning of this says

Nuclear power is actually more recyclable than things like wind turbines, because all the metals are recyclable and old reactor parts are recycled as we speak, and 96% of the fuel is re-usable. It uses several orders of magnitude less materials per kWh produced.

I totally disagree. A wind turbine is just a small thing compared to acres upon acres need for a nuclear plant. You can still farm the land under a wind turbine blade, but not a nuclear plant. Typical construction of a wind generator consists of aluminum, steel, copper and some minor amounts of plastics and nylons; all recyclable.
But the core of a nuclear plant consists of highly radioactive shit from it's years of exposure to neutron bombardment that it needs containment for 10000's of years under tons of rock, never to be exposed to surface life. The comment is just Eikka comment is just fallacy expressed by a pro-nuke wonk.

We not only need non fossil fuel sources, we must also reduce consumption and population to sustainable levels.

Laudable sentiments, RMJ, but what method/s do you propose that we use to expeditiously reduce the planet's human population (and thus consumption) to around one-third of its present level? A severe nuclear winter or a highly virulent global pandemic may achieve that goal, but neither would be a popular choice for most of the 7.46 billion people alive today.

A wind turbine is just a small thing compared to acres upon acres need for a nuclear plant.

intermittent energy needs much more acres.
https://scontent-...58A42811
https://scontent-...28_o.jpg
https://scontent-...79_o.png
http://s1.ibtimes...0529.jpg
https://scontent-...5860B0DB
https://scontent-...50_o.png

"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - James Hanson
http://dotearth.b...gy/?_r=0
"Other countries that have tried to go nuclear-free, most recently Germany, have faced increased fossil fuel use and rising emissions."
http://www.reuter...CN12Q1IN
Electricity in Germany remains 6x more carbon-intensive than in France.
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg

Here ya go;

http://www.power-...rs.html?

This does not include the ones scheduled to shut down and those hanging on the possibility of more SUBSIDIES to cover their operating costs.

Willie - And around and around you go.

intermittent energy needs much more acres

But the turbines can be put on land that is also used for farms, or out to sea. The solar panels can be put on roofs, brown fields, commercial buildings, parking lots etc.

-- The onion jackass hee...hawwss again.
The "Green" energy scams continues...
https://ontario-w...ractors/

I actually saw anti make a logical point recently. But now, he goes back to the puerile cat-calls, screaming across the playground.

Is he related to Trump?

Here ya go;

http://www.power-...rs.html?

This does not include the ones scheduled to shut down and those hanging on the possibility of more SUBSIDIES to cover their operating costs.

And all carbon-free power replaced by coal and natural gas/fracking to serve as backup for intermittent unicorn fart energy.
"US Nuclear Retirements Largely Replaced by Fossil Fuels" - October 31, 2016
https://www.green...il-fuels
https://scontent-...58990BDC
https://scontent-...5895B8A1
https://pbs.twimg...qHeW.jpg

gskam is a nuclear Hater that acts as pro-renewable but that is in fact a fossil fuel lover.
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg

How do you waste electricity? Did they build huge loads and turn it into heat? What?

How do you waste electricity?

They generated a surplus, more than demand, so they were putting more capacity on the grid than was used. And yes, it did cause damage to their grids,,,,,, I will grant you that Zephir-Skippy's source is a biased one with an agenda, but the basic facts were true. China DID overbuilt windmills. China DID have to halt new construction because reduced demand. And China DID experience damages to their grid because of the wildly fluctuating output from the windmills.

Did they build huge loads and turn it into heat?

Cher for the electrical engineer, you sure are pretty slow. The grid was the load and the fluctuations in the supply/demand caused parts of the grid to get overloaded (turned into heat) and breakdown.

What?

That.

The nukes were taken off line in Germany as a political decision

It is also interesting to note that nuclear (at least in germany) was only viewed as a bridge technology until renewables came up to speed. Even before their accelerated shutdown (due to Fukushima) nuclear was never considered as a long term solution to energy production.

But the turbines can be put on land that is also used for farms, or out to sea.

Nuclear powerplants always are situated on prime farmland, because nuclear power requires access to a lot of water. This means it has to be situated close to rivers. In the current climate conditions nuclear powerplants grow ever less efficient because their efficiency is based on the difference in temperature between river water and surrounding air. In warm summers and during times of low river levels nuclear powerplants have had to be shut down or their warm runoff water would have started killing all the fish (do you care about fish, Willie?).

Ira, stay on your 9,000 hp diesel boat with the other environmentalists.

Their problem, it it exists, is with control, not too much power which somehow gets "wasted".

Ira, stay on your 9,000 hp diesel boat with the other environmentalists.

If it is all the same to you Cher, I will come and go and stay where I want to stay. You do not mind, do you?

Their problem, it it exists, is with control, not too much power which somehow gets "wasted".

If you got a problem with control, you got a problem with your system, and the system is for power, so yeah, they had the problem with too much power. That was the problem, the windmill system was hard to control because they tried for too much capacity without taking into proper consideration the wild fluctuations of output. It was a scale thing. Windmills are okay for small, city sized systems, but not suited for huge industrial grids.

But France is actually in the process of shuttering its nukes, and building out renewables

Intermittent renewables are proven unable to replace a reliable baseload source of clean energy, so carbon-free nuclear power will be replaced by coal and natural gas/fracking.
People who are pro-renewable do not believe in global warming.
"Energiewende has proven to be a complete fiasco with 6 times more CO2 emissions and far more expensive energy bills in comparison to nuclear-based France...Renewables are in reality fossil corporation's sanctuaries since they obligatorily require 80% conventional stable energy baseload conversely out of fossil fuels (mostly fracking gas, oil or coal)..."

People who are pro-renewable do not believe in global warming.

I'd say, the connection is exactly the opposite. Al Gore backed renewable business is closely connected with belief in global warming.

Uh huh and yet False "Profit" Al, burns 24 time the electricity as the average US home, flies private jets and joy rides around in the biggest gas guzzling SUVs and Limos.

Willie

Electricity in Germany remains 6x more carbon-intensive than in France.

But France is actually in the process of shuttering its nukes, and building out renewables - http://phys.org/n...ies.html
EDF (the big French nuclear company) found some suckers across the channel. They are going to be screwing the British tax payer for 12 cents a Kwh - in a plant that wont come on line for close to 10 years. Yeah nukes.....

-- onion jackass hee...hawws...again
I bet this jackass burns electricity the way he does gasoline and only trolls this forum to bray at the heretics to appease his hypocrisy.

"Windmills"??
------------------------------------

Anyone who calls wind turbines windmills is ignorant of the technology.

"Windmills"??
------------------------------------

"Can We Rely on Wind and Solar Energy?"
https://www.youtu...dSmPbdLg

"Windmills"??
------------------------------------

Anyone who calls wind turbines windmills is ignorant of the technology.

Are you saying they aren't windmills? Is this another one of your "rocket powered cars are not cars" things?

"Windmills"??
------------------------------------

Anyone who calls wind turbines windmills is ignorant of the technology.

George we've been through this. People showed you that windmiil is a correct term.

Do you think that being stupid twice will make you appear smarter? Or do you think you appear smart no matter what stupid things you say here?

Or do you just forget you were stupid the first time because youre a stupid old psychopath whos usually stoned out of his gourd?

Pick one. Theyre all true you dumfuk.

It is also interesting to note that nuclear (at least in germany) was only viewed as a bridge technology until renewables came up to speed

Nukes were planned perhaps 60 years ago. What makes you think anyone back then ever thought that renewables would ever 'come up to speed'? Turbine and PV tech of sufficient quality didnt even exist back then.

Nope. We were using high-head Pelton wheels at the turn of the 20th century sending power down to Sacramento at an astounding 4kV. A lot of the old ones are (or were), sitting outside the old stations as relics in the California gold country.

Before that, by 1850 we had Francis turbines. Between the two, we built Western utilities.

Nope. We were using high-head Pelton wheels at the turn of the 20th century sending power down to Sacramento at an astounding 4kV. A lot of the old ones are (or were), sitting outside the old stations as relics in the California gold country.

Before that, by 1850 we had Francis turbines. Between the two, we built Western utilities.

So what did all those gold miners do with the electricity you send to them? Charge up their electric mules? To bad they had to wait for the Civil War to get over before they put up the solar panes.

Ignorance.

I guess the history they teach in the Red States stops with them winning the Civil War.

Ignorance.

Well I am not the one talking about electrifying the gold mining areas before the Civil War. Before California was even a state. Cher, that is just plain weird.

I guess the history they teach in the Red States stops with them winning the Civil War.

What? The Civil War was won by the United States, but we are talking about before that. Are smoking the pot early today or what?

Cher, there were no electrifying going in 1850. Not even in California. That is just another one of those things you made up to try to sound like you were on to something. Cher, if you are going to try to get away with making up stuffs, you really need to try not to do it while you are smoking pot.

Cherie, you have to stop thinking this forum is Twitter. We are discussing the reality of power in the West, which was forty years before you folk got it courtesy of the Guvmunt you hate.

Cherie, you have to stop thinking this forum is Twitter. We are discussing the reality of power in the West, which was forty years before you folk got it courtesy of the Guvmunt you hate.

Well I am calling you the liar on you getting it 10 years before the Civil War. Choot, they did not invent the light bulb until 10 years after the Civil War. Only a person with a really bad mental condition would think he could get away with that lie.

I did not say we got it before the Civil War, that is what you decided you had read. But apparently the language is different there. We as a nation had Francis turbines back then, but we did not use them until early in the 20th Century here.

Only someone with no knowledge would think this is Twitter.

did not say we got it before the Civil War, that is what you decided you had read.

Cher you did. It's still up there because the nice peoples at physorg got that "3-Min-Take-Back-Your-Lie-Because-It-Is-Stupid-Rule". 1850 is ten whole years BEFORE the Civil War.

But apparently the language is different there.

Apparently. I think it has something to with all that pot you smoke.

We were using high-head Pelton wheels at the turn of the 20th century sending power down to Sacramento at an astounding 4kV. A lot of the old ones are (or were), sitting outside the old stations as relics in the California gold country.

Before that, by 1850 we had Francis turbines.Between the two we built Western utilities.

Cher, any way you spin it, you are claiming that you generating electricity before the Civil War.

We as a nation had Francis turbines back then, but we did not use them until early in the 20th Century here.

One town did, but not for electricity.

Yes, we as a nation had them in 1848 or so, but we in the West did not use them until later. We had high-head hydro with Pelton buckets and generators producing the power which was sent down to Sacramento in the world's first transmission line - 4 kV.

Turbine and PV tech of sufficient quality didnt even exist back then

Nope. We were using high-head Pelton wheels at the turn of the 20th century sending power down to Sacramento at an astounding 4kV. A lot of the old ones are (or were), sitting outside the old stations as relics in the California gold country.

Before that, by 1850 we had Francis turbines. Between the two, we built Western utilities

Uh I was talking about 'wind turbines' which are commonly and correctly referred to as 'windmills' by many euros.

I guess you got confused 1) because wind turbines arent actually turbines, 2) your compulsion to pretend like you know something about the subject got the better of you as usual 3) youre a pothead (and proud of it) whos obviously stoned all the time.

But as usual as ira says you screwed up. But this time on 2 levels.

Otto - think you might get a 3 Pinochios on this one - http://wind.jmu.e...ine.html

"eolic generator" would be more suitable rather than turbine because turbines in general have a compressor, a chamber, and a expander, and are not intermittent.
But "windmill" is suitable too because it "mills" (crushes/grinds) birds and bats in midair with its rotating wind blades.

Otto - think you might get a 3 Pinochios on this one - http://wind.jmu.e...ine.html

Nope I looked it up once and euros use 'windmill' in their native language[s] to refer to wind turbines.

Zum Beispeil

"20.000 Windmühlen in Betrieb; im Jahr 2007 liefen zum Vergleich 19.000 moderne Windenergieanlagen. Für die Niederlande waren im 17./ 18. Jahrhundert die 9.000 Windmühlen "Motor" des Wirtschaftsaufschwungs. Man hat sie zur Bodenentwässerung, in Sägefabriken und in Hammerwerken eingesetzt."

-und sofort

BTW

James Madison U
Office Address:
1401 Technology Drive, Suite 120
MSC 4905
Harrisonburg, VA 22807

As in amerkin

I made the point and I'll make it again for you. That's in_this_country. Elsewhere they don't make the distinction. Do you understand?

I do I do I do - and gkam is correct in the explanation of the distinction between a turbine, and a windmill. The link I showed you and all the other links if you plan to use google search like I suggested - totally support that understanding

First you need to do searches in other languages to learn that in other countries the term 'windmill' is used for 'wind turbine' which was the point I made when I said

Uh I was talking about 'wind turbines' which are commonly and correctly referred to as 'windmills' by many euros

And if you continue to belabor this I will continue to repeat this fact until you wet your pants.

@greenO
@Otto
you both are correct

however, to make a point-
STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam isn't known for his accuracy, nor is he highly regarded for his links and references

put that into the mix with his propensity for intentional lies (or worse)

and what you get is that STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam want's to argue about the semantics of a singular point while ignoring the huge logical fallacies and holes left in his own arguments about everything else

just read this thread alone and you can see that for yourself!

if he refuses to call cattle, Rhino's, pigs, giraffe's and horses "ungulates" because the typical nomenclature for common use is acceptable (as in: horse, cattle, rhino, etc), then why the stupid argument to differentiate between wind turbine and windmill, especially considering the colloquial use all over the world (including America)???

just think on that a spell...

Lots of copper and stator iron in the coal plants we are closing. Many of the components can be made using fiber materials and other replacements.

as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required for to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds the 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. Most of indium is consumed with solar cell industry - but we have reserves of indium to the next fifteen years only. This is not how the sustainable evolution is supposed to look like...

I'm not sure you're aware that things like copper, aluminium, steel and iridium can be recycled? Are you? If so then I must contradict you: this is EXACTLY how a sustainable evolution is supposed to look like.

@ greenonions-Skippy,

I think the horse is dead.

https://www.youtu...xsGZDetk

according to greenies, mining is not necessary, a bunch of new wind/solar facilities can be made just by recycling an existing one, it is similar to "miracle of the five loaves and two fish" "feeding the multitude".

@ greenonions-Skippy,

I think the horse is dead.

https://www.youtu...xsGZDetk

i LOVE Justin Wilson!
ROTFLMFAO

Nah - I think the horse is dead. Thks...

-- The greenJackass hee....hawwwsss.. again.
The horse is dead, so the jackass brays.

Quite simply, because both solar and wind will have "down times" (read cloudy weather or lack of wind), each of these plants is essentially a hybrid operation.

Why?

Because when these sources are not producing power the LNG plants fire up to cover the gap in power.

Integral Fast Reactor.

It will be done, if not by the west it is already well underway in the east.

Beginning with the development of the BN-800.

Weep all you want, you can weep even more if you reside in the west when the east surpasses you because they embraced this form of energy. There's no way the west will be competitive if that's the case.

Simple answer. Forget wind and solar for short term.

Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition.

This would be one of the most expensive options in the short term. This may change in the future but, right now, wind is generally the cheapest source of power and nuclear the most expensive. (I have nothing in principle against nuclear )

Oh nothing compared to the number of panels and wind needed to make up the difference in power between solar and wind compared to what they actually put in today.

Far cheaper actually.

BUt then again if not by the west then the east fully intends to lead the way so it makes no difference in the end.

Use AFR's, Advanced Fast Reactors for transition

These things are barely out of the study phase. The first prototype for study hasn't even been built. Never mind the second, improved prototype after that...and all the engineering work AFTER that to get this to a viable, commercial design, after which one could think about some reactors built by one company...and THEN one can think about a next generation ramp-up.

By the time these are up and running in any significant numbers the world could have transitioned to a full solar/wind/wave power infrastructure several times over.

Have you heard of EBR 2 even?

You need facts.

optical

rom this reasons the nuclear plants are replaced with coal and gas plants in Germany.

No. The nukes were taken off line in Germany as a political decision - which left them to fall back on what they had at the time - which was mostly coal. Germany is now in the process of building out their renewable infrastructure - but obviously something that takes time. Despite Willie's protestations - GHG emissions are down signifcantly (around 30%) - with the goal of 80-95% by 2050. It is of course a complete indictment of the bullshit thrown out by Willie and Eikka - that a country like Germany - can seriously look at being 100% renewable - in less than 100 years. It can and is being done. https://en.wikipe..._Germany

Ya and France wants more.

It doesn't matter, Russia and China will move forward in this regard anyways.

Willie

Electricity in Germany remains 6x more carbon-intensive than in France.

But France is actually in the process of shuttering its nukes, and building out renewables - http://phys.org/n...ies.html
EDF (the big French nuclear company) found some suckers across the channel. They are going to be screwing the British tax payer for 12 cents a Kwh - in a plant that wont come on line for close to 10 years. Yeah nukes.....

So why are they planing to open up a breeder?

"So why are they planing to open up a breeder?"
------------------------------

Paid-off politicians.

"But France is actually in the process of shuttering its nukes, and building out renewables"

if so they will be going on wrong way to reduce CO2 emissions.
real time comparison: France(nuclear) X Germany(solar&wind + coal):
https://electrici...mrow.co/
Notice how nuclear-powered countries like France and Switzerland are green while Germany is brown, lignite brown coal.

"wind and solar farms only produce 30 percent of their advertised power on average with the rest provided primarily by burning coal or natural gas, largely methane — and methane, a greenhouse gas, is initially 70 times worse than carbon dioxide."
"absurd claim that wind power has no fuel costs."
http://www.duluth...-economy

Meanwhile, the projected cost to "clean up" the melted nukes at Fukushima is now over $190,000,000,000, leaving that option closed.

Meanwhile, Germany has wasted $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion euros from taxpayers' money) on unicorn energy pipe dream without meaningful CO2 reduction, Germans are dying due to air pollution thanks to renewable energy scam.
http://energyandc...-deaths/
https://blogs.sci...on-more/
http://d2ouvy59p0...port.pdf