Thursday, 11 August 2016

What is wrong with renewable energy? : ERoEI explains it.

When the Guardian delete your post because they find it so offensive. So I thought, but it was only a series of glitches there. I wrote this. It's a nice summary of why I think most renewable energy is evil.

Solar will not be cheaper. In Northern Europe (Germany and Switzerland) a recent study showed solar PV does not even make enough energy to pay for its energy costs (Ferroni & Hopkirk). Its energy return on energy invested, ERoEI, is 0.83. Meaning for every 100 units spent making, installing, running and decommissioning it, only 83 units are made. An advanced society, like ours, needs energy systems with an ERoEI at least 12. Meaning 100 energy units are used for every 1200 units made. ERoEI is just a ratio between the energy used to gather it and the payback we get when harvesting it. Renewables like wind and solar have low to very low ERoEI figures so are just not able to sustain us. Because of

  1. low power density,
  2. low energy density and
  3. supply intermittency.

The energy density of nuclear power is potentially a billion times that of a lithium battery. The power density of nukes is tens of billions times wind. Low renewable power density means vast numbers of renewable energy machines must be built, covering huge areas, destroying ecosystems and producing unimaginable environmental harm. All of it must soon be scrapped. A wind mill lasts only 20 years and solar PV barely more than 25. Energy/power density alone does not kill renewables as an effective solution, but intermittency does. Because it can’t supply energy on demand, intermittents need supporting sources like natural gas and/or hydro. [Batteries won’t do: (1) too expensive, (2) Low energy density means too many will be required.] Fake environmentalists promoting renewable energy are the biggest threat to the environment today. They are funded by billion dollar, mostly, US Foundations. E.g. Ford, Rockefeller, David & Lucile Packard, Ted Turner, Charles Stewart Mott, etc. Such foundations have promoted Luddism, and a neo-Malthusian mindset since the Club of Rome was founded in 1968. Rich people who want nothing more than to pull the ladder up after them to keep the rest of the world poor. Money made on the backs of U.S. labourers, now dedicated to making the U.S. poor. Done in the name of protecting the environment. Those in their pay (all the mainstream green movement) are not environmentalists in the true sense. The so-called solutions they promote will do more harm than good: cause energy poverty and ruin the environment.

No comments:

Post a Comment