What's wrong with Wind and Solar?

[KW]

No reasons were given apart from efficiency limits which is just false as proved by my calculations.
The rare earth narrative was also false as again demonsteated by the demand distribution.
What else was there?

Wrong. Fact based reasons are given and you didn't address them.

 

[KW]

Because of the growth in electronics and semiconductor industry, not because of renewable.
Thank you for admitting that metallurgy is a major consumer of these rare earths by the way. The boom in heavy industry in the developing world has also been a large contributor of the demand.
In fact since oil refining and chemical industry requires a lot of rare earths, their replacement by renewables will mean that rare earths meant for oil refining will go to solar and wind. That is it.

There are many consumers. That compounds the problem, it doesn't make it decrease.

The facts about the consumption needed by renewable energy production are accurate. You are ignoring them in an effort to filibuster. You haven't provided a single quote from the video that is false. You are defeating straw dogs.

 

[wellwisher]

The main problem with solar and wind are these often require large stationary devices that cannot be yet scaled for as many applications of self sufficient portability, as gasoline. Many people in the USA like to be independent, with this limitation needing to be overcome, before they will buy the farm. The Left, which likes big Government, may be more inclined for less self sufficiency.

You cannot carry a windmill or a large solar panel on the back of your pick-up truck and use its energy generation to drive across the country. I suppose you could use sails for wind power and maybe go 10 knots on a good day, zig zagging along the highway. These two solar options are more limited to become part of a stationary grid for electric generation. Electric cars is sort of one solution to the bottleneck.

Wind and solar have the practical problems of the wind and sun not always being available. Each night, solar power is off line. This is also true on cloudy days. Solar is therefore not optimized for everywhere. While not all days or places will be windy. Others can be too windy.

There are some other natural sources of energy that, although also stationary, do have the advantage of being more continuous sources of energy; 24/7. For example, the energy in the tides could be used to generate electricity. Energy can be extracted both ways, as the tide goes in and out. This is moon power.

One simple type of moon power device would build a dam with a gate near where the ocean tides feed the salt marches. The gate opens at high tide and allows the water too flow into the natural salt mashes. The gate is then shut, as the tide switches, too low tide, leaving behind a large pool of water; potential energy behind the dam. This potential energy can extracted with smaller turbines and regenerated at high tide by opening the gate using tidal timers.

A future higher tech option would use large turbines that can spin both ways as the tide comes in and out. This will not require dams. It can be most useful in places of large tidal swings. One such device is being built near Scotland.

A third moon power option can build large platform which is designed to lifted by the tide. The power generation occurs as the platform lowers at low tide. The decent of the platform is geared to generate electricity, for the town that is built on the platform.

Another continuous source of energy is connected the chemical potential between fresh and salt water, where all the rivers of the world meet the oceans. This difference in fresh water versus the water and salt ions of the ocean, can be used to generate electricity.

There is no one natural source that can do it all. The more options we have, the higher percent we can generate. But in the mean time we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you do that there is no incentive to optimize anything, since there is no high standard for competition and innovation. The shady lawyers in power are not qualified to make these technical decisions. A lawyer in not an engineer. The former are better at ambulance chasing; feigned outrage, which seems to work on the Left.

 

[KW]

Funny that you think I am on the "Left", when I am a retired middle manager with a career in the oil industry, of all things (!) , who has voted mainly Conservative during my adult life. I am not by any means on the Left. But I do have a degree in physical science, plus over 30yrs experience in the energy industry. So that's where I get my stance on climate change from, not from politics. This is not an issue of politics. It is an issue of science and of energy technology.

Regarding these PragerU people, contrary to your assertion, I posted a substantive account of what they do and why they cannot be trusted. They do not produce fact based information, evidently. Just read the Wiki extract I posted and then read the posts from @sayak83, which confirm perfectly the substance of the Wiki extract.

What PragerU produces, apparently, is rhetorical talking points, seemingly aimed at mugs who don't know their science.

This is definitely leftist propaganda. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence from a single PragerU video that is false. You won't, either. You will spin away because your goal is political, not factual. I'm a chemist, by the way. I know science majors who are leftists. Politics controls their opinions.

 

[KW]

The main problem with solar and wind are these often require large stationary devices that cannot be yet scaled for as many applications of self sufficient portability, as gasoline. Many people in the USA like to be independent, with this limitation needing to be overcome, before they will buy the farm. The Left, which likes big Government, may be more inclined for less self sufficiency.

You cannot carry a windmill or a large solar panel on the back of your pick-up truck and use its energy generation to drive across the country. I suppose you could use sails for wind power and maybe go 10 knots on a good day, zig zagging along the highway. These two solar options are more limited to become part of a stationary grid for electric generation. Electric cars is sort of one solution to the bottleneck.

Wind and solar have the practical problems of the wind and sun not always being available. Each night, solar power is off line. This is also true on cloudy days. Solar is therefore not optimized for everywhere. While not all days or places will be windy. Others can be too windy.

There are some other natural sources of energy that, although also stationary, do have the advantage of being more continuous sources of energy; 24/7. For example, the energy in the tides could be used to generate electricity. Energy can be extracted both ways, as the tide goes in and out. This is moon power.

One simple type of moon power device would build a dam with a gate near where the ocean tides feed the salt marches. The gate opens at high tide and allows the water too flow into the natural salt mashes. The gate is then shut, as the tide switches, too low tide, leaving behind a large pool of water; potential energy behind the dam. This potential energy can extracted with smaller turbines and regenerated at high tide by opening the gate using tidal timers.

A future higher tech option would use large turbines that can spin both ways as the tide comes in and out. This will not require dams. It can be most useful in places of large tidal swings. One such device is being built near Scotland.

A third moon power option can build large platform which is designed to lifted by the tide. The power generation occurs as the platform lowers at low tide. The decent of the platform is geared to generate electricity, for the town that is built on the platform.

Another continuous source of energy is connected the chemical potential between fresh and salt water, where all the rivers of the world meet the oceans. This difference in fresh water versus the water and salt ions of the ocean, can be used to generate electricity.

There is no one natural source that can do it all. The more options we have, the higher percent we can generate. But in the mean time we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you do that there is no incentive to optimize anything, since there is no high standard for competition and innovation. The shady lawyers in power are not qualified to make these technical decisions. A lawyer in not an engineer. The former are better at ambulance chasing; feigned outrage, which seems to work on the Left.

Lots of interesting ideas here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lots of numbers and data presented with very little sourcing (I saw none), and no real context for the conclusions drawn.

Next. Please.

I also noticed that the stats were very... selective and weren't necessarily that relevant.

Like batteries: you'd never need to put all - or maybe even any - of the energy from wind power into battery storage. They put your wind farm sites in areas that have strong, relatively constant wind, so they aren't as "peaky" as the video insinuates but never actually says. Solar's output goes up and down with daylight, but so does the demand it serves.

And wind or solar is never the only power source feeding a grid.

It seems like the implicit message in the video was "wind and solar aren't 100% perfect in all cases, so we shouldn't use them at all," which is absolute foolishness. No power source is perfect. No power source is the best choice in every part of the world. No large power grid is fed by only one type of power generation.

Seems like the makers of the video have taken their audience for fools, which makes me wonder if @KW has been duped or if he's taking us for fools as well.

 

[KW]

No reasons were given apart from efficiency limits which is just false as proved by my calculations.
The rare earth narrative was also false as again demonsteated by the demand distribution.
What else was there?

Wrong. Mining requirements, production limitations, environmental damage limitations, toxic waste by products, etc. were all factors. I don't think you watched this video.

 

[KW]

And wind or solar is never the only power source feeding a grid.

It seems like the implicit message in the video was "wind and solar aren't 100% perfect in all cases, so we shouldn't use them at all," which is absolute foolishness. No power source is perfect. No power source is the best choice in every part of the world. No large power grid is fed by only one type of power generation..

Wrong.

The video does not make the case that we shouldn't use wind and solar, it merely points out the economic and environmental costs and the production limitations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong.

The video does not make the case that we shouldn't use wind and solar, it merely points out the economic and environmental costs and the production limitations.

So you think the message was more about encouraging conservation than about arguing for oil-based power generation?

 

[KW]

So you think the message was more about encouraging conservation than about arguing for oil-based power generation?

The point of the video was to point out economic and environmental problems with solar and wind production that are often ignored by the media and other green energy advocates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong. Mining requirements, production limitations, environmental damage limitations, toxic waste by products, etc. were all factors. I don't think you watched this video.

I found it telling that none of these issues were raised for oil extraction.

I also found it telling that when the video talked about oil at all, it talked about oil drilling... even though a lot of the oil reserves that will meet the US's future oil demands are in the form of oil sands. Oil sand extraction is much more costly, energy-intensive and emissions-intensive than conventional oil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point of the video was to point out economic and environmental problems with solar and wind production that are often ignored by the media and other green energy advocates.

The sad part is that I think you actually believe that green energy advocates don't grapple with the problems and limitations of "greener" power generation every day.

If you cared to look for yourself, you'd see that the big theme in those circles is that energy efficiency and conservation is even more important than improving our energy sources, since every energy source has an environmental footprint.

... it's just that the footprint of coal and oil is catastrophically bad.

 

[sayak83]

Wrong. Fact based reasons are given and you didn't address them.

Ridiculous. I addressed all the facts and showed them to be red herrings.
Instead of one line quips maybe you can tell me which fact I missed.

 

[KW]

I found it telling that none of these issues were raised for oil extraction.

I also found it telling that when the video talked about oil at all, it talked about oil drilling... even though a lot of the oil reserves that will meet the US's future oil demands are in the form of oil sands. Oil sand extraction is much more costly, energy-intensive and emissions-intensive than conventional oil.

The point of the video was to point out the problems associated with wind and solar energy that are often ignored.

It was factual and effective.

 

[KW]

The sad part is that I think you actually believe that green energy advocates don't grapple with the problems and limitations of "greener" power generation every day.

If you cared to look for yourself, you'd see that the big theme in those circles is that energy efficiency and conservation is even more important than improving our energy sources, since every energy source has an environmental footprint.

... it's just that the footprint of coal and oil is catastrophically bad.

The video was accurate and the scope was not broad.

There are multiple accounts of the problems with fossil fuels energy production if you want to seek them out.

 

[sayak83]

Wrong. Mining requirements, production limitations, environmental damage limitations, toxic waste by products, etc. were all factors. I don't think you watched this video.

I showed that rare earth demand is not driven by renewables. So there are no extra mining burden or associated environmental damage that would not have happened anyway. Similar point for the other materials.
The key point missed deliberately there is that it is going to displace all the toxic waste generated during petroleum extraction and oil refining or coal mining. Instead renewable energy infrastructure depends on raw materials that are already extensively in demand from other industries like
Siliconrimary demand semicinductor industry
Rare earth:extensive demand in electronics, glass, magnets, metallurgy and chemical refining.
Polymers and carbon fibres of blades: primary demand aeroplanes and automotives

Thus renewable sector eliminates the toxic petroleum mining and refining industry and add only a little bit of additional demand on already widely used materials.

 

[KW]

I showed that rare earth demand is not driven by renewables. So there are no extra mining burden or associated environmental damage that would not have happened anyway. Similar point for the other materials.
The key point missed deliberately there is that it is going to displace all the toxic waste generated during petroleum extraction and oil refining or coal mining. Instead renewable energy infrastructure depends on raw materials that are already extensively in demand from other industries like
Siliconrimary demand semicinductor industry
Rare earth:extensive demand in electronics, glass, magnets, metallurgy and chemical refining.
Polymers and carbon fibres of blades: primary demand aeroplanes and automotives

Thus renewable sector eliminates the toxic petroleum mining and refining industry and add only a little bit of additional demand on already widely used materials.

You didn't show anything. You made bogus assumptions.

The rare earth market is tight now. There is not enough supply. Adding millions of tons of new demand will lead to more mining OR there will not be enough material to meet demand.

The video accurately pointed out the problems associated with wind and solar power that are usually not reported. That's all it did. You haven't pointed out a single fact from the video that was inaccurate or misleading.

In addition, rare earth metals are found in very low percentages in the ground, so massive amounts of earth must be moved to provide a decent yield.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How so? Granted having a sizable number of misinformed and uneducated people push against it has been a speed bump.

The wind turbines for example are a huge waste of resources and they are eyesores. Nothing natural or sustainable about them.

 

[exchemist]

This is definitely leftist propaganda. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence from a single PragerU video that is false. You won't, either. You will spin away because your goal is political, not factual. I'm a chemist, by the way. I know science majors who are leftists. Politics controls their opinions.

Hahaha. Tell me why you think Wiki is wrong in its assessment of PragerU, then. And tell me why @sayak83 's criticisms are misplaced. Both of us have given you substantive reasons why we disbelieve PragerU. So far you have not addressed any of the points raised. All you have done in response is accuse me of leftist propaganda. I am no more leftist than the IPCC.

As far as the feasibility of wind and solar as energy sources goes, these Prager people are behind the times. There is no point them arguing that these sources don't have the capacity to replace a large proportion of fossil fuel, because it has already been done. As I say, 30% of the UK's electricity already comes from renewable sources, and rising. And believe me, the countryside and the surrounding sea are not covered in turbines or solar panels.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Just so that nobody gets confused, and that we all start with facts instead of PragerU propaganda.

Renewable Energy: Myth vs. Fact

Three Myths About Renewable Energy and the Grid, Debunked

5 Myths About Renewable Energy

Debunking myths about renewable energy
For those unable to read (for whatever reason )

I actually watched the OP’s video, filled with it’s tripe circular reasoning and outdated information.
As usual….