Bending Over Backwards


If CO2 emissions are warming the planet, then humanity's scorecard in this respect should be: total fossil fuels consumption.

Is our total consumption of fossil fuels dropping?

No. Actually it is increasing. What is more, every year, fossil fuels are farther ahead, in absolute terms, vs. all other energy sources combined.

You might say: this is not possible! By listening to the media you probably believe the hype that solar and wind are taking the energy markets by storm.  Well, they aren't.

Here we have data from the 2014 International Energy Agency report:


One of the problems in energy reporting is that there is a lot of hype / PR / lobbying from the renewable energy camp and they bend over backwards in painful positions to try convince the world they are conquering it.

For example, they say: "Germany produced 50% of its electricity with solar!"

Yes, but what is not mentioned is that this percentage was achieved in a particular instant and, if you actually consider the full year, coal and nuclear far, far outproduced solar. See graph below. 



They also "forget" to mention that electricity is only a fraction of Germany's total energy consumption and thus, overall, oil continues to be the #1 energy source in that country.

Or, they may say something like: "during the month of October more renewable capacity was installed in the USA than of any other energy source."

Yes, first they say nothing of the other months and second, in renewables "installed capacity" can be very deceiving. Why? Because the capacity factors of solar and wind are quite low. Solar is usually below 20% and wind is usually below 30%.

Another thing we need to ask is: what is being lumped into the "renewable" category to inflate its numbers. Let's review it carefully. More often than not you may find wood there.


So instead of burning long dead trees (coal) we are chopping down currently living trees. Is this progress? I don't know. 

More inconvenient questions need to be asked, such as:

Do renewables actually reduce CO2 emissions in the real world (not only in the lab)? And if so, do they provide the most bang for the buck in this pursuit?

Do renewables allow us to retire for good fossil fuel generating capacity?



In summary, beware of persons bending themselves backward to try to deceive the public. Maybe they are just overeager, but for me it almost seems dishonest. 

Thank you.







Comments

Nathan Macher said…
Nice post. I am a fan of wind and solar for off-grid applications, but insisting on 100% renewables for grid power ignores the scale of the problem completely. We need lessen our carbon footprint, which wind and solar can't do by themselves.
12/07/2015 3:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more