The Problem with Renewables

[IroNat]

The Problem with Renewables

https://odysee.com/@Geopop:4/the-problem-with-renewables-peter-zeihan:1

[BossBoss]

The Problem with Renewables

https://odysee.com/@Geopop:4/the-problem-with-renewables-peter-zeihan:1

They talk about carbon output, but compared to what? Natural Gas? Nuclear Energy?

In Germany it takes 10-15 Years until Solar Panels pay off.
You can use them 30-40 Years.

So the Argument in the Link is that they produce more carbon in production for solar panels than other energy sources to produce the power directly? I kind of doubt that.

The Link you posted is thin on real information, no information about what they actually compare. They just say it is like this and don't explain anything.

Energy-Payback-Time in Europe for Solar Panels is 1-1,3 Years, in 20-25 years you have produced 20-25x more energy than needed for production of said solar panels. Even if produced in China with Fossil Fuels that seems pretty good to me..

Natural Gas is not much better than coal in carbon output.

I don't get it, maybe you can bring arguments what the problem realy is.

[Hypertrophy]

They talk about carbon output, but compared to what? Natural Gas? Nuclear Energy?

In Germany it takes 10-15 Years until Solar Panels pay off.
You can use them 30-40 Years.

So the Argument in the Link is that they produce more carbon in production for solar panels than other energy sources to produce the power directly? I kind of doubt that.

The Link you posted is thin on real information, no information about what they actually compare. They just say it is like this and don't explain anything.

Energy-Payback-Time in Europe for Solar Panels is 1-1,3 Years, in 20-25 years you have produced 20-25x more energy than needed for production of said solar panels. Even if produced in China with Fossil Fuels that seems pretty good to me..

Natural Gas is not much better than coal in carbon output.

I don't get it, maybe you can bring arguments what the problem realy is.

Photovoltaic panels don't heat your houses. The real problem is there is no substitute for fossil fuels or burning wood other than nuclear energy to keep Germans from freezing to death in winter.


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Germany-Turns-To-Coal-Power-Amid-Natural-Gas-Crisis.html

[ThisisOverload]

No way a solar panel pays back in 1-3 years unless you are including government subsidies.

If you watched the video you would understand what the reasoning is.

Wind and solar wouldn't even exist without the government subsides.

Neither would electric vehicles.

[IroNat]

Germany is f*cked in the future for several reasons.  Energy is just one.

[IroNat]

Wind and solar wouldn't even exist without the government subsides.

Neither would electric vehicles.

Right.  I deleted my post because I wasn't sure what he meant in his post.

[OAK]

Photovoltaic panels don't heat your houses. The real problem is there is no substitute for fossil fuels or burning wood other than nuclear energy to keep Germans from freezing to death in winter.


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Germany-Turns-To-Coal-Power-Amid-Natural-Gas-Crisis.html

Interesting to note that burning wood is now considered "Renewable Energy".

This happened when the term "Clean Energy" changed to "Renewable Energy".

Of course environmentalists use the two terms interchangeably.

I watched a recent documentary (can't remember the name of it) showing how Al Gore has made millions burning down the Amazon Rain Forest to create "Renewable Energy".

 


 

[Moontrane]

Germany is f*cked in the future for several reasons.  Energy is just one.

They were running 17 nuke pants and are now down to 3, irrationally fearing a Fukushima-like disaster.

The subsidies necessary to support their renewables has their electricity prices 2-3 times what we pay, depending on the state.

[GigantorX]

They talk about carbon output, but compared to what? Natural Gas? Nuclear Energy?

In Germany it takes 10-15 Years until Solar Panels pay off.
You can use them 30-40 Years.

So the Argument in the Link is that they produce more carbon in production for solar panels than other energy sources to produce the power directly? I kind of doubt that.

The Link you posted is thin on real information, no information about what they actually compare. They just say it is like this and don't explain anything.

Energy-Payback-Time in Europe for Solar Panels is 1-1,3 Years, in 20-25 years you have produced 20-25x more energy than needed for production of said solar panels. Even if produced in China with Fossil Fuels that seems pretty good to me..

Natural Gas is not much better than coal in carbon output.

I don't get it, maybe you can bring arguments what the problem realy is.

Not much difference in carbon output?

According to the EPA it's half as much as as coal. USA carbon emissions have declined over 40% over the last 20 years mainly due to nat gas instead of coal

[Moontrane]

Not much difference in carbon output?

According to the EPA it's half as much as as coal. USA carbon emissions have declined over 40% over the last 20 years mainly due to nat gas instead of coal

Because of natural gas plants, we produce less GHG now as a percentage of world totals and tonnage than when Clinton was in office - and because we continue to operate nuke plants.

[BossBoss]

Not much difference in carbon output?

According to the EPA it's half as much as as coal. USA carbon emissions have declined over 40% over the last 20 years mainly due to nat gas instead of coal

No, not much better i wrote, because the argument in the link seems to be to use natural gas as a power source directly in opposite to solar panels produced in china with coal.
And that is bullshit because a solar panel produces 20x more energy than what was needed to produce the solar panel itself.

example:

100kw is needed to produce a solar panel in china with coal
2000kw(100kw x 20) out of a solar panel in its lifetime

Can you produce 2000kw with Natural gas with less carbon emission than 100kw from coal?

It makes almost no difference where you produce it or in which country you place it, it will always generate the least carbon output.

[Mayday]

Food and energy have had the largest inflationary price increases by far.

I don’t think It’s about whether a solar panel is carbon neutral I think it’s more about getting energy and food price up high enough where it forces allocation of household income away from high waste consumer goods and onto these 2 things.

Reducing the Bs Consumer goods is where the carbon benefit is realised.

If the above is true it then likely means high sun areas could become the most desirable as there exists opportunity to have free energy.

[Matt]

Interesting to note that burning wood is now considered "Renewable Energy".

This happened when the term "Clean Energy" changed to "Renewable Energy".

Of course environmentalists use the two terms interchangeably.

I watched a recent documentary (can't remember the name of it) showing how Al Gore has made millions burning down the Amazon Rain Forest to create "Renewable Energy".

 

You think Covid is a deadly threat to people, you dumb fuck. You have no credibility.

[Tapeworm]

Interesting to note that burning wood is now considered "Renewable Energy".

This happened when the term "Clean Energy" changed to "Renewable Energy".

Of course environmentalists use the two terms interchangeably.

I watched a recent documentary (can't remember the name of it) showing how Al Gore has made millions burning down the Amazon Rain Forest to create "Renewable Energy".

 

I burn wood. Currently designing a fan forced downdraft gasification boiler furnace with awesome heat exchange, possibly with a cooktop and oven.

a solar panel produces 20x more energy than what was needed to produce the solar panel itself.

I'd be interested to see the accounting. If they include mining, refing, ect.

[Humble Narcissist]

Wind and solar wouldn't even exist without the government subsides.

Neither would electric vehicles.

That tells how valuable they are. The new generation is so gullible.

[youandme]

They talk about carbon output, but compared to what? Natural Gas? Nuclear Energy?

In Germany it takes 10-15 Years until Solar Panels pay off.
You can use them 30-40 Years.

So the Argument in the Link is that they produce more carbon in production for solar panels than other energy sources to produce the power directly? I kind of doubt that.

The Link you posted is thin on real information, no information about what they actually compare. They just say it is like this and don't explain anything.

Energy-Payback-Time in Europe for Solar Panels is 1-1,3 Years, in 20-25 years you have produced 20-25x more energy than needed for production of said solar panels. Even if produced in China with Fossil Fuels that seems pretty good to me..

Natural Gas is not much better than coal in carbon output.

I don't get it, maybe you can bring arguments what the problem realy is.

You can use them for 30-40 years? I doubt that….they aren’t tried and tested since they haven’t been around that long to test.

I considered solar panels but per panel, not enough capacity for my expected use. Moore’s Law maybe in another 3 years I’ll be satisfied to install a system and battery backup bank. I believe that it’s better as a back up compared to a gas generator which I’d pay about the same amount but still have to pay for fuel come time to run it which would be very high seeing as how the prices of natural gas is going to be.

[ProudVirgin69]

That tells how valuable they are. The new generation is so gullible.

Lmfao oil, gas, and coal get way more subsidies than renewables.  Talk about gullible 

[Tapeworm]

You can use them for 30-40 years? I doubt that….they aren’t tried and tested since they haven’t been around that long to test.

I considered solar panels but per panel, not enough capacity for my expected use. Moore’s Law maybe in another 3 years I’ll be satisfied to install a system and battery backup bank. I believe that it’s better as a back up compared to a gas generator which I’d pay about the same amount but still have to pay for fuel come time to run it which would be very high seeing as how the prices of natural gas is going to be.

There are some cool vids about wood gasification if you want an off grid solution. Charing wood without combustion releases gas that will power a gasoline engine.  Tons of vehicles were converted to run on wood gas during WW2 gasoline shortages. There are drawbacks, of course, like contaminants and storage issues.

Personally, I wouldn't bother backing up electricity at all for long term outages, and I'm content with generator backup for brief periods.

The vast majority of domestic electricity is spent on climate control imo. When I looked into solar & batteries, I found I could do everything with a pretty modest bank, but AC would require massive battery capacity. Heating elements are thirsty too but easily replaced with flame.

[Thin Lizzy]

Electricity is produced by agitating electrons. Using the nucleus seems like the most natural way to do this. I suspect even leftists will eventually come around to
nuclear.

[Tapeworm]

I'm curious to run a 'swamp cooler' but pass the cooled & damp evap air through a heat exchanger to cool a second air supplied at ambient humidity. Seems like you'd get decent temp drop without the humidity rise. Fans draw fuck all compared to compressors. I guess it would cost evaporated water but you'd collect some back from condensation dropping out of the ambient air.

[youandme]

I'm curious to run a 'swamp cooler' but pass the cooled & damp evap air through a heat exchanger to cool a second air supplied at ambient humidity. Seems like you'd get decent temp drop without the humidity rise. Fans draw fuck all compared to compressors. I guess it would cost evaporated water but you'd collect some back from condensation dropping out of the ambient air.

Yeah I mostly am interested in maintaining indoor temps with backup energy for when storms hit.

Swamp cooler depends on what area of US you live in. If low humidity region, then it’s fine.

[Tapeworm]

Yeah I mostly am interested in maintaining indoor temps with backup energy for when storms hit.

Swamp cooler depends on what area of US you live in. If low humidity region, then it’s fine.

Unless you believe fossil fuels are going to get Bill Gates expensive, the cost of a gen for a day here and there would be negligible.

I'm in West Australia. Summers are bone dry. Theh call them evaporative air conditioners here. Regarded as a low market, yesterday technology. I've just never heard of anyone solving the dampness issue, which is what makes them suck, by introducing ambient air to an evap cooled heat exchanger.

I'm also going to have a retarded amount of insulation. Like 2-3 feet think overhead and 12" wall cavities along with double or triple glazing and drop down insulative screens. If I ever get time to do it. Just doing a check of seals and leaks might make a difference to what you're spending on climate control if big insulation works aren't practical for you.



I dig electricity for it's ability to run electronics and control systems but to generate it from a thing we make move and then use it to make something else move... the frictional and conversion losses are surely staggering. For heating, forget it. Shit that burns is hot, I figure.

[Hypertrophy]

Interesting to note that burning wood is now considered "Renewable Energy".

This happened when the term "Clean Energy" changed to "Renewable Energy".

Of course environmentalists use the two terms interchangeably.

I watched a recent documentary (can't remember the name of it) showing how Al Gore has made millions burning down the Amazon Rain Forest to create "Renewable Energy".

 

Yes- I agree. If we all had to burn wood to stay warm all of a sudden there would be no forests left. The real problem is the population has gotten so dense in parts of the world that day to day life there is unsustainable without fossil fuels or nuclear.

[ThisisOverload]

Unless you believe fossil fuels are going to get Bill Gates expensive, the cost of a gen for a day here and there would be negligible.

I'm in West Australia. Summers are bone dry. Theh call them evaporative air conditioners here. Regarded as a low market, yesterday technology. I've just never heard of anyone solving the dampness issue, which is what makes them suck, by introducing ambient air to an evap cooled heat exchanger.

I'm also going to have a retarded amount of insulation. Like 2-3 feet think overhead and 12" wall cavities along with double or triple glazing and drop down insulative screens. If I ever get time to do it. Just doing a check of seals and leaks might make a difference to what you're spending on climate control if big insulation works aren't practical for you.

I dig electricity for it's ability to run electronics and control systems but to generate it from a thing we make move and then use it to make something else move... the frictional and conversion losses are surely staggering. For heating, forget it. Shit that burns is hot, I figure.

Swamp coolers work well in arid environments. A properly designed one can drop the temp by 25-30 degrees F on a really hot day, but their cooling declines as the ambient temp drops.

The problem with the water cooling is it needs to be setup outdoors and blow into the habitation. So on a hot day the entire unit is going to bake and depending on how your water circulates, it can heat up too, making the cooler less efficient.

Much better than nothing.

[joswift]

we have multi fuel stoves in the main room and in one of the conservatories
We only used or gas central heating twice last winter
We just keep the main stove burning and it heats the whole house

We are looking at an electric shower as opposed to our gas mixer and a boiling water tap in the kitchen

Get rid of the gas and we save £150 on standing charge alone each year.
Will cost about £700 for the shower and tap