What's wrong with Wind and Solar?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

As opposed to a big coal-fired power plant: now there's a thing of beauty!

I live in an area with lots of wind turbines. They're fine.

... and more to the point, they're very similar aesthetically to the towers on the big transmission lines, which we would have needed more of if we were getting more of our power from Niagara Falls or the nuclear plants.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Look I have clearly shown that the claims of the video are bogus and I have clearly shown why. Those who do not want to understand will not. I have no obligation to make people understand.
The last point I will make is something anybody who is rational will understand. 55% of rare earths are used in catalysis applications in petroleum and chemical industry. As solar and wind displaces these industries, the requirement of rare earths there will decrease, and that excess can be used in solar and wind technology. So renewables will not produce any net increase in rare earth usage at all. The reason why rare earth demand had skyrocketed is because every industry, especially the chemical and electronics industry that uses them has grown rapidly. Using nonrenewables will actually increase the need for chemical catalysts and increase the demand for rare earths more than using renewables.

Rare earth elements: A review of applications, occurrence, exploration, analysis, recycling, and environmental impact - ScienceDirect

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, you are not blind
The direct link can be tricky to get (worked on my PC and one smartphone, the other smartphone not). So I make it easy for you
AND
I will do a copy paste of the text in the first spoiler below (in case you like to read it). The second spoiler has a screenshot (600kB) showing where I needed to click to get the transcript)

Spoiler: Transcript is in the spoiler

Have you ever heard of "unobtanium"?

It's the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It's a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they've found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.



They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.



The simple truth is that we can't. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.



To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren't being talked about.



All sources of energy have limits that can't be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun's photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.



So, we're pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren't any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we're told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.



Consider the world's biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day's worth of America's electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world's energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies.



Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they're built from nonrenewable materials.



Consider some sobering numbers:



A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet.



Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater.



Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few.



Where's all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect.



Australia's Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global "gold" rush for energy materials will take miners into "…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven't yet been disturbed."



And who is doing the mining? Let's just say that they're not all going to be union workers with union protections.



Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: "The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks."



And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.



Then there's the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.



With current plans, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that by 2050, the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today's global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge.



Before we launch history's biggest increase in mining, dig up millions of acres in pristine areas, encourage childhood labor, and create epic waste problems, we might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons—the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.



And technology is making it easier to acquire and cleaner to use them every day.



The following comparisons are typical—and instructive:



It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine. And while that turbine generates the energy equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hour, the oil rig produces 10 barrels per hour. It costs less than 50 cents to store a barrel of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.



Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them if they have an idea of the cost... to the environment.



"Unobtanium" works fine in the movies. But we don't live in movies. We live in the real world.



I'm Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.

Spoiler: Screenshot shows my click to get Transcript

DirectLink to page of Transcript
What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | PragerU

Screenshot showing (arrow) where to click)
View attachment 61689

thank you for providing the link; my page wasn't showing that.

 

[KW]

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.

Wiki is often wrong. Anyone can post there.

You didn't know that?

You are arguing against points that weren't even made in the video.

Do yourself a favor and watch the video before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[KW]

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

.

Then you should have no problem pointing something out that fits your description.

Good luck.

 

[Kooky]

Prager U relies on experts who are highly educated and experienced. Which presenter are you criticizing?

Who has the writing credit for this video?

 

[Father Heathen]

The wind turbines for example are a huge waste of resources

What resources, and how? Be specific.

and they are eyesores.

Oilfields and oil rigs aren't?

Nothing natural or sustainable about them.

How can wind be unnatural or unsustainable?

 

[exchemist]

Wiki is often wrong. Anyone can post there.

You didn't know that?

You are arguing against points that weren't even made in the video.

Do yourself a favor and watch the video before embarrassing yourself further.

Nope. @sayak83 is arguing against points made in the video, while I am arguing generally that PragerU is not to be trusted, and giving my evidence for that view, which comes from Wikipedia. If you contend it is wrong, show me, with documentary evidence, in what respects it is wrong.

And I'm sorry but I'm not watching crap videos. If you want to argue a point, do it yourself rather than lazily outsourcing it to these charlatans.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How can wind be unnatural or unsustainable

Wind turbines are plastic and require, (wait for it,) mass quantities of oil to run.
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil

Diesel powered trucks bring the steel and other materials to the site, earth-moving equipment cuts a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect them... all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone takes 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles and 500 metric tons for the towers.

Just installing the foundation of a single offshore turbine can consume 18,857 barrels of marine fuel during construction.

If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030, then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel.

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

 

[exchemist]

Wind turbines are plastic and require, (wait for it,) mass quantities of oil to run.
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil

Diesel powered trucks bring the steel and other materials to the site, earth-moving equipment cuts a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect them... all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone takes 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles and 500 metric tons for the towers.

Just installing the foundation of a single offshore turbine can consume 18,857 barrels of marine fuel during construction.

If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030, then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel.

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

These telephone numbers don't mean much without being put in some kind of context. Here is a study that shows the energy payback time for a 2MW turbine is between 5 and 9 months, depending on whether or not it is recycled at the end of its assumed 25yr life.
https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/29930/InTech-Life_cycle_analysis_of_wind_turbine.pdf

This is for a fairly small turbine. For the 5MW ones we use increasingly now, the payback will be faster.

By the way, steel production will eventually get converted to use hydrogen reduction rather than carbon reduction, so coal won't be needed at that point. But that is probably a couple of decades away.

Everyone realises we need to use fossil fuel now, to create the capacity to stop using it later. That is not an argument for continuing with the status quo..........which is using fossil fuel to build more power plants to consume fossil fuel.

 

[exchemist]

Look I have clearly shown that the claims of the video are bogus and I have clearly shown why. Those who do not want to understand will not. I have no obligation to make people understand.
The last point I will make is something anybody who is rational will understand. 55% of rare earths are used in catalysis applications in petroleum and chemical industry. As solar and wind displaces these industries, the requirement of rare earths there will decrease, and that excess can be used in solar and wind technology. So renewables will not produce any net increase in rare earth usage at all. The reason why rare earth demand had skyrocketed is because every industry, especially the chemical and electronics industry that uses them has grown rapidly. Using nonrenewables will actually increase the need for chemical catalysts and increase the demand for rare earths more than using renewables.

View attachment 61713

Rare earth elements: A review of applications, occurrence, exploration, analysis, recycling, and environmental impact - ScienceDirect

Very interesting.

My reading of the paper is the main catalysis application is in catalytic converters on vehicles, rather than in catalysts for industrial processes. I think - though I may be getting out of date now- the petrochemical industry tends to use metals such as Pt and Pd, i.e. transition metals, in its catalytic processes (hydrocracking etc). But whatever the precise sphere of application, the demand for rare earths in catalysis is indisputable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

These telephone numbers don't mean much without being put in some kind of context. Here is a study that shows the energy payback time for a 2MW turbine is between 5 and 9 months, depending on whether or not it is recycled at the end of its assumed 25yr life.
https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/29930/InTech-Life_cycle_analysis_of_wind_turbine.pdf

This is for a fairly small turbine. For the 5MW ones we use increasingly now, the payback will be faster.

By the way, steel production will eventually get converted to use hydrogen reduction rather than carbon reduction, so coal won't be needed at that point. But that is probably a couple of decades away.

Everyone realises we need to use fossil fuel now, to create the capacity to stop using it later. That is not an argument for continuing with the status quo..........which is using fossil fuel to build more power plants to consume fossil fuel.

But that depends on how much the wind blows.
And for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the required large commercial scales.

Wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year.
The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way.

One wind turbine component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95% of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals.
This mining is certainly not environmental friendly.
It creates toxic waste that endangers the residents.
And of course that means it not a renewable resource or one we can produce ourselves.

 

[exchemist]

But that depends on how much the wind blows.
And for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the required large commercial scales.

Wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year.
The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way.

One wind turbine component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95% of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals.
This mining is certainly not environmental friendly.
It creates toxic waste that endangers the residents.
And of course that means it not a renewable resource or one we can produce ourselves.

Nope. How much the wind blows is taken into account in this paper, based on actual statistics on how much it blows.

Nobody disputes that all energy production has adverse effects on the environment. The point at issue is that climate change is a potentially far worse effect than anything else involved in energy production. All the other effects can be mitigated to some degree - including how rare earths are mined.

And yes we do have alternatives for steel making and cement kilns. They are not in operation yet but most certainly exist and are being scaled up for commercial production even now. So, yes, this has been thought through, end to end and is not only achievable but is already being achieved.

 

[Father Heathen]

Wind turbines are plastic and require, (wait for it,) mass quantities of oil to run.
To Get Wind Power You Need Oil

Diesel powered trucks bring the steel and other materials to the site, earth-moving equipment cuts a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect them... all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone takes 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles and 500 metric tons for the towers.

Just installing the foundation of a single offshore turbine can consume 18,857 barrels of marine fuel during construction.

If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030, then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel.

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

Like I've already stated, it would be impossible to cease using fossil fuels "cold turkey" overnight. It has to be a gradual scaling down. That said, even if you give zero ****s about the environment, the climate, etc. fossil fuels won't last forever.

 

[Kooky]

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

And here I thought people tilting at wind power was a thing of the past.

 

[Heyo]

As opposed to a big coal-fired power plant: now there's a thing of beauty!

I live in an area with lots of wind turbines. They're fine.

... and more to the point, they're very similar aesthetically to the towers on the big transmission lines, which we would have needed more of if we were getting more of our power from Niagara Falls or the nuclear plants.

We have the opposite problem. I live in the north of Germany. We have so much wind power that we often don't have the capacity to transport the electricity south. We need more transmission lines for our wind power.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A five minute video that makes some interesting points:

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? - Bing video

If you wantvto faults, you can find it everywhere. Solar or windpower are not perfect at the moment, but give it some more years, and they correct the products to work optimal.

 

[Dogknox20]

A five minute video that makes some interesting points:

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? - Bing video

.
Question... Have you ever thought about all the Electricity going into the Earth from our thousands of power plants around the world; thus heating up the earth and causing climate change!?!
Fact... A battery can only store so much electricity the excess comes out as "Heat"! It has been said over and over "The Earth is one big battery"!

 

[anna.]

Florida approved a PragerU climate cartoon for schools. We asked a scientist to fact-check it.

“I find something like this...to be really dangerous.”

www.motherjones.com

Propaganda aimed at kids. Over and above the factual inaccuracies, they're using social fear to tell kids they'll lose friends over their concern about climate change, and equates oppression under the Nazis and the Communists with green energy projects.

 

[Quetzal]

I always got the feeling wind and solar won't be sufficient. There is 1 solution I know, to not run out of oil etc

Maybe not yet, but I am optimistic that we have the capability for perpetual energy by harnessing both. The issue, as I ignorantly understand it, is the transportation of the energy itself. I imagine a large solar farm in Texas would produce more than enough energy for a large portion of Texas and the surrounding states, but how do you distribute it?