@MiningAtoms

Share this post

CO2 "Payback" Magical Thinking--Wind & Solar

bfrandall.substack.com

Discover more from @MiningAtoms

Energy. Mining. Life.
Over 3,000 subscribers
Continue reading
Sign in

CO2 "Payback" Magical Thinking--Wind & Solar

A Con Starts with Bad Assumptions

B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡
Jan 27, 2023
26
Share this post

CO2 "Payback" Magical Thinking--Wind & Solar

bfrandall.substack.com
6
Share

The Greenhouse Gas Payback Time, or GHGPBT, just keeps getting better. Or so they say. At this rate, the climate will be changing very soon. The Excel Models have verified it. And almost everybody on the planet seems to believe it. But all models are based on specific analytical assumptions in the context of specific questions. In the case of Wind & Solar, the modeling assumptions are embarrassingly silly.

Image

These verified Life Cycle Assessments allow unRenewable energy academics, supporters, and manufacturers to market their wares and, rather amusingly to me, blithely claim that wind and solar critics are doing nothing more than engaging in illegitimate “smear tactics.” All the “energy” wasted in creating the Wind and Solar Machines is “paid back” within a few months. Ergo, from the moment that day comes, the Wind - Solar Machine is “saving” gazillion tons of CO2. Change the Climate! Clean Green ESG Love. Myths debunked. Anti Wind & Solar smear tactics exposed in burning shame.

But assumptions are the name of the game whenever crafting technical analyses. If we take a look at the details behind the underlying assumptions of these arguments, which blithely overlook unfavorable facts, the analysis only works if you believe in fairy tales and alchemy. The underlying assumptions for the mental construct just make no sense. I highlight three specific reasons.

1. The comparison baseline is always against some existing grid. This is absurd. In any resource evaluation, the comparison is against new new resources to be added in the future, not to the existing grid.

2. The construct absurdly inflates the relative value of the energy delivered by Wind and Solar. Wind - Solar grids are 100% dependent on fossil fuels. Gas & Nuclear are not fungible with Wind & Solar.

3. The construct does not even begin to account for all the energy and carbon consumed in the system required to support Wind and Solar grids.

These are naught but illegitimate mental constructs, assumptions, and games that have no basis in fact or the objective reality that plays out around us every day.

1. Carbon “Payback” Compared to What Baseline?

The honest comparison should be new resources that may be added to a grid, not the existing grid. The question presented from a system planning point of view is simply this: Which new generation resources should be built? Assuming GHG emissions is a valid point of analysis, then it’s a very simple question: What are the GHG emissions from the following new generation resources compared solely against each other, since these are the only new resources that we are planning to build in the future:

  • Wind

  • Solar

  • Natural gas

  • Nuclear power

Coal is is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to planning for new resources for two reasons.

First, no new coal plants are being built in the nations relying on life cycle assessments to assist in planning decisions.

Second, gas and nuclear power are the only resources that replace coal capabilities on a grid due to physics. Germany built hundreds of billions of wind and solar resources, resulting in total dependence on either (i) Russian Gas; or (ii) lignite coal.

Wind & Solar advocates love to compare their wares against coal—even though doing so is absolutely illegitimate—because doing so makes them look better. Look ho much coal we are replacing! But it’s just a mental trick—a con. New wind and solar are competing against only new gas and nuclear power. Because wind and solar are chaotic, these resources cannot and do not replace fossil fuels. Only nuclear power replaces fossil fuel capabilities—and that replacement is 100%. After wrecking its nuclear power fleet, Germany became totally dependent on Russian Gas. Then coal. There are only three choices: Coal. Gas. Nuclear.

Image

Any honest life cycle assessment would present system planners two two very simple questions when it comes to future GHG impacts from new resources:

Honest Question No. 1:

Compared to a new, modern, dual combined cycle natural gas plant, what are the relative GHG emissions vs. Wind and Solar?

In other words, if we install a new natural gas plants, the GHG impacts are expected to be X while if we install new Wind and Solar, the GHG impacts are expected to be Y.

Honest Question No. 2:

Compared to a new nuclear power plant, what are the relative GHG emissions vs. Wind and Solar?

In other words, what is the relative energy and GHG “payback time” for, say, the BWRX-300 or AP-1000, and a competing Wind or Solar project? Hint: it’s a lot longer than 12 months. It’s never. Generations of Wind and Solar machines will need to be created before a nuclear power plant wears out. Each one will consume orders of magnitude more energy and precious fossil fuel resources (like steel and diesel fuel that we need for farming - who likes food?). There is no comparison here. We don’t even need a computer model. Yet the EU forces France to build Wind and Solar to replace its nuclear power grid. Go figure.

2. Bicycles and Locomotives Are Not Fungible

One of the most absurd assumptions in life cycle assessments is that every kilowatt hour of power produced by a windmill or a solar panel has the same value, and provides the same service, as a kilowatt hour produced by a dispatchable resource.

I have written extensively on the absurdity of comparing wind and solar with gas and nuclear power. These resources are not comparable. Electrical energy is an on-demand, real-time service, not a commodity. It can’t be stored. Chaotic service is not the same as on-demand service. Chaotic service is not a service. How valuable as a service is Random Uber vs. Uber?

@MiningAtoms
Fuel is a Commodity, Uber is a Service, & Floober is a Loser
Conflation Fuel is a commodity. A commodity is a basic good that can be stored, transported, sold, and used. A commodity is interchangeable with goods of the same type, such as forms of copper— cathode of a certain grade to wire of a specific gauge, or forms of wheat—from unmilled grain, to whole wheat or white flour, to bread. All of these are commoditi…
Read more
10 months ago · 12 likes · 4 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Along these lines, lifecycle assessments rely entirely on absurd energy conversions to get to the payback result they want by converting all the energy units into electric energy units so that the Wind - Solar “product” can “repay” the energy that went into their creation. It works like Reverse Alchemy:

  1. The Met Coal required to make steel for wind turbines and solar panels has X heat value.

  2. X heat value is equivalent to Y kilowatt hours of electric energy (e.g., if you burned the met coal in a coal plant, you would get Y units of electrical energy.

  3. A wind turbine sited in the most windy or sunny place we can think of produces Y units of electrical energy in Z months (and assuming that Y units of electrical energy have the same grid value as all others).

  4. Ergo, the solar panel or wind turbine has “paid back” the Met Coal consumed in creating the machines in Z months. From that point forward, the machine is producing all the met coal we will ever need. Now we just need trillions and trillions more magic energy machines.

This mental construct is absurd. The electrical energy value of met coal is not relevant because one would never waste met coal to make electricity. It’s metallurgical grade carbon used for making steel and polysilicon. It is a highly limited and constrained energy resource that has high impacts and is in short supply. The argument is like comparing the calorie value of lard with the calorie value of bread. Which one has more value to you as a food? A unit of lard has the same calories as a unit of bread. Therefore, they are the same. The mental construct is like comparing diamonds and coal because they are both Carbon. It’s an absurd mental construct assumption, without which the life cycle assessment simply implodes on itself.

@MiningAtoms
Wind & Solar Power are Like Graphite; Nuclear Power is Like Diamonds
This article is a collaboration. Edgardo Sepulveda, a regulatory consulting economist working in Toronto, Canada, posted a marvelous thread on Twitter that I am re-publishing here, following this introduction. Fungibility One of the most useful words I learned in law school is…
Read more
10 months ago · 12 likes · 4 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Another issue in this context is that while wind and solar production rates are highly dependent on siting decisions, gas and nuclear produce the same dispatchable, load-following and load-balancing functions no matter where they are sited. Life cycle assessments make highly generalized assumptions about siting of wind and solar resources that my or may not have any basis in reality—and usually not. But nobody calls this out.

For instance, the Travers Solar project, some 1.3 million Chinese solar panels sited near Calgary at 52 degrees latitude, is the biggest energy con that Canada has ever seen. Solar projects sited in northern latitudes are naught but Carbon & Mineral Sinks.

@MiningAtoms
Uncle Rube's PV Solar is an Energy Sink?
Credit @AlScottRational for posting this analysis. The authors soundly discredit the use of PV solar in areas of moderate isolation like Switzerland and countries north of the Swiss Alps. PV solar acts “as net energy sink.” Avert the gaze. The authors establish that the "extended ERoEI (ERoEIEXT) for PV systems is below 1 and thus has a negative impact. …
Read more
9 months ago · 10 likes · 5 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Another issue is that while gas and nuclear produce steam that spins a synchronous rotating mass that inherently provides grid support and stability, wind and solar variability provides no such stability. In fact, wind and solar destabilize the grid.

The kinetic energy of these massive rotating machines works like a shock absorber to keep grid frequency from dropping too fast when demand exceeds supply or rising too fast when supply exceeds demand. Without this stabilizing force, power grids could face a greater risk of frequency excursions that could force generators offline or cause cascading outages like the 2003 blackout that affected about 50 million people across the Northeast U.S. and Canada’s Ontario province.

Jeff St. John - Solving the Renewable Energy Grid’s Inertia Problem

Hint: It’s not easily solveable and doing so requires significant additional grid resources, as increasing amounts of wind and solar are added to the grid.

3. External Carbon and Energy Costs Are Enormous

Life cycle assessments do not even begin to account for all of the external energy and carbon costs and resources that would not be required or incurred, but for the need to deal with the chaotic energy produced by wind and solar. I have written extensively on this topic as well. Wind and Solar grids are 100% dependent on natural gas power, so the net GHG savings are illusory due to factors such as spinning standby power, reserve power, and, most important, ramping costs and damage. The grid has become totally chaotic.

Image

And that chaos means one thing—the need for ramping power. The Weather Pit keeps getting deeper. Fast acceleration and deceleration is just as wasteful and damaging to power generators as it is for your car. Imagine going from 0 to 100 miles per hour and back a few hundred times a day vs. cruising at freeway speed. Fuel. Wear and tear. Are you saving energy and carbon? Power plants are the same. Wind and solar chaos are wrecking them. Yet the life cycle assessments ignore it.

Read more here:

@MiningAtoms
Chaos Theory, Meet the Grid
Chaos Theory (the “butterfly effect”) owes its very existence to Edward Lorenz’s compter-aided study of the weather. There is hardly a more chaotic system than the weather…
Read more
9 months ago · 13 likes · 3 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

And here:

@MiningAtoms
Destroying the Earth in the Name of "Green Energy"
John Lee Pettimore is a man of few words, but when he speaks, people listen: In exchange for some 317 tweets, he has garnered nearly 25k followers. Recently he posted a notable thread on mining and the “Green Energy” absurdity. With his permission, I am reprinting it here. He wants to continue his quiet, private life and I can’t blame him. His thread des…
Read more
8 months ago · 37 likes · 11 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

And here:

@MiningAtoms
Creep Fatigue Interaction Is Wrecking the Grid
Unpredictable. Random. Variable. Unreliable. Chance. Uncertain. High-Entropy. Disordered. Capricious. Volatile. Inconstant. Aberrant. Haphazard. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Modern Chaos Theory (the “butterfly effect”) owes its very existence to…
Read more
9 months ago · 17 likes · 5 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Chaos in the natural gas supply chain.

@MiningAtoms
Chaos in the Natural Gas Supply Chain, too?
Twitter is chock full of absurd energy nonsense, like this one…
Read more
9 months ago · 15 likes · 11 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡
Twitter avatar for @JohnLeePettim13
John Lee Pettimore @JohnLeePettim13
Wind turbine gear oil $669.75 🇺🇸 891.97 🇨🇦 for 5 gallons. The average wind farm has 150 turbines. Each wind turbine requires 80 gallons of oil for lubrication. 12,000 gallons at a cost of $1,608,000🇺🇸 $2,100,000🇨🇦 The oil is changed out after the first 500 hrs. #GreenEnergy
Image
11:23 AM ∙ Jan 27, 2023
1,104Likes501Retweets

How many life cycle assessments account for all the resources wasted building excess transmission infrastructure that is not needed for nuclear power? None of them.

@MiningAtoms
Wind/Solar/Batteries & the Public Utility Racket
In the American psyche, perhaps there is no better example of a public utility than the transcontinental railroad. Brigham Young was the first fully-paid shareholder of the Union Pacific Railroad for good reasons. He saw the power of steam-driven iron wheels. Ogden City, Utah soon became the Union Pacific / Southern Pacific demarcation point and the pla…
Read more
a year ago · 24 likes · 7 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

More wind and solar is not better.

The Only Question That Matters

When it comes to energy, there is only one question: How can humans obtain the largest amounts of useful (controllable) energy (thermal is by far the most useful energy form), using the lowest total natural resource inputs? Nuclear power produces orders of magnitude more useful energy, for the longest periods of time, using orders of magnitude fewer total natural resource inputs and system costs, than any engine ever devised by humans. The only energy policy that matters to humanity is planning and building nuclear power. Plan and build hundreds and hundreds of new nuclear power plants as quickly as possible. Wind and Solar are naught but shiny keys.

@MiningAtoms
3,500 is More than 600
Nearly 8 billion human beings sharing the planet consume a great deal of energy. This chart shows us a bit about where we have been and where we are headed, energywise. I’d like to add one point of clarification to the graph below. In 2012, world energy consumption exceeded 500 exajoules. By 2020, it was above 600 exajoules…
Read more
9 months ago · 23 likes · 8 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Right now, we are being gaslit by Gazprom and such.

@MiningAtoms
Ever Heard of "Gaslighting"?
Imagine 1970s energy policy being orders of magnitude better than 2020s energy policy. See any windmills, solar panels, or unnecessary transmission? Me, neither. See Nordstream 1 or 2? Nope. Do you see France having to mine to the center of the earth? Yea, me, neither.🤷‍♂️…
Read more
10 months ago · 18 likes · 15 comments · B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

26
Share this post

CO2 "Payback" Magical Thinking--Wind & Solar

bfrandall.substack.com
6
Share
6 Comments
Share this discussion

CO2 "Payback" Magical Thinking--Wind & Solar

bfrandall.substack.com
Bash
Jan 27Liked by B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Incidentally, the Russians are the world's largest producer of nuclear energy, and are an export powerhouse when it comes to plants. They have an essentially unlimited amount of gas/oil/coal - and yet are growing their share of nuclear power, just like the Chinese.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
Matt Randall
Writes Matt Randall’s Substack
Jan 30Liked by B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡

Love your writing BF Randall, keep it up.

Do you know if there are any further studies done on the "Full Cost of Electricity" compared to LCOE? I remember seeing a post of yours mentioning it and I read the Texas study about it, but they only described what FCOE would include but there wasn't an actual estimate of FCOE vs LCOE. Some sound numbers of FCOE vs LCOE would be very telling on how expensive renewables are compared to nuclear in the grand scheme.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
4 more comments...
Top
New
Community

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2023 B.F. Randall ⚛ ⛏ ⚡
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great writing