Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power “Fails on Every Count”

submitted by [deleted] from dailysceptic.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Rather than get a computer's opinion on the present situation, search:

expected improvements to batteries for renewable energy

and search:

global renewable energy storage projections

and search:

expected developments in solar panels

Look primarily at the reports for investors (Bloomberg, Financial Times, The Economist &c)

Here is an example:

https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-energy-storage-market-to-grow-15-fold-by-2030/

Oil resources will dry up in a few decades.

Nuclear options are being reconsidered.

The answer for the future is obviously: solar, wind, sea/wave, improved batteries (non-lithium), nuclear, oil, gas (somewhat in that order). The question is not about one source or another, but about how to improve the renewable options. And they will improve. Don't trust BigOil and BigNuclear shills regarding a retired teacher's £10k one-page comment on the current storage of wind energy. It's not helping anyone.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The required improvement to batteries would have to be enormous for this to be practical. 15 fold isn't nearly enough.

Oil resources will dry up in a few decades.

Run out of proven reserves you mean.

Don't trust BigOil and BigNuclear shills regarding a retired teacher's £10k one-page comment on the current storage of wind energy. It's not helping anyone.

I'm fact checking just one of the points made, and they're right. It's an enormous issue. Even with multiple ways to generate energy, we can't store much. So unless it's energy on demand, which a lot of green energies aren't, we are looking at going backwards to a lower standard of living.

[–]dicknipples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

going backwards to a lower standard of living.

Why do you repeat this? Seems like something you've heard elsewhere. Relying primarily on fossil fuels has lowered and will continue lowering the standard of living. It's that simple. Diversifying options for energy will improve standards of living, by a long way. Note the portions of my response where I've provided links, evidence and arguments showing this.

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

going backwards to a lower standard of living.

Why do you repeat this? Seems like something you've heard elsewhere

It's in the article, didn't you read it? If we can't sustain current energy use, and really, increase it to fit the population, our standard of living declines. Think of going camping and having to rely on whatever battery power you have available. You can't run a fridge, TV, air-conditioning unit, playstation, heat water for a shower, pump running water for that matter, etc.. If we have less power available, it's like that. Maybe not so severe, but it will not be the essentially limitless power on tap we enjoy now.

Relying primarily on fossil fuels has lowered and will continue lowering the standard of living. It's that simple. Diversifying options for energy will improve standards of living, by a long way.

Not in Houston when the power grid goes gets overtaxed and we can't cool our homes and people start dying. This area isn't incredibly liveable without air conditioning. It never sustained a very large population until AC was common.

Very cold areas, frozen hellscapes like Minnesota where 32F is a nice spring day, probably won't be liveable either without coal, oil, or abundant electricity.

[–]dicknipples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hence the big picture: increase options for energy; improve said options; profit.

Texas took itself off the national grid because it's run by idiotic christo-fascist corruption

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hence the big picture: increase options for energy; improve said options; profit.

But that's not what people are talking about with Green Energy, they're talking about replacing efficient and readily available forms of energy with stuff that isn't. Just imagine a life without an internal combustion engine and a limited supply of batteries, you can only go so far. For 2022 car models the median range is 403 miles. Modern top end EVs have a further range, but it takes time to charge them. The kind of vehicles more in my price range, older models, a IC vehicle is going to have around 250-300 miles of range and the EV will have around 130. If you can't charge on the go, your EV range shrinks by half for a round trip. How far the average person can travel goes down with green energy.

Also, commercial planes don't run on batteries and likely never will.

Texas took itself off the national grid because it's run by idiotic christo-fascist corruption

No argument Texas leaders are corrupt morons, but having an independent energy grid makes sense if it were run better.

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

they're talking about replacing efficient and readily available forms of energy with stuff that isn't.

It may seem like that, but the developing policies are somewhat flexible. For example, London taxis:

https://www.edie.net/london-bans-new-taxis-that-are-not-zero-emission-capable/

Since the start of 2020, all private hire vehicles (the most common kind being minicabs) under 18 months old and licenced for the first time in London needed to be zero-emission-capable. This term refers to pure electric vehicles (EVs), hydrogen vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles with a zero-emission mode.

Thus the new taxis I've incredibly expensive, and one can get a few thousand from the government to purchase one. Some drivers bought nhybrid vehicles before the deadline in 2020, and others can still use hybrid vehicles in the long term. One complaint I've heard is that charging the battery takes an hour or so and costs as much as filling the tank with petrol in just a vew minutes. The expensive charging service is wrong, IMO, and the government should regulate price gouging by BigEnergy (as well as by BigOil). Still, it's the appropriate step in the direction of not relying on OPEC and other fossil fuels, which have been destroying our lives in a number of ways and are expected to run out. We also have to think of d3rr's kids. What world will they inherit....

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One complaint I've heard is that charging the battery takes an hour

That's the rapid charge, and it's not great for the battery.

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Next time you visit London, let the cabbies know