17

Scientific Study – There’s no such thing as clean energy. Alleged "Green" Energy Causes More Environmental Harm Than Traditional Energy Sources.

Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Science
31 comments | Share | Flag

The researchers discovered that renewable energy sources sometimes contribute to problems they were designed to solve. For example, a series of international studies have found that both wind and solar farms are themselves causing local climate change. Wind farms increase the temperature of the soil beneath them, and this warming causes soil microbes to release more carbon dioxide. So, ironically, while wind energy might be partially reducing human “carbon emissions”, it is also increasing the “carbon emissions” from natural sources.

Green energy technologies require a 10-fold increase in mineral extraction compared to fossil fuel electricity. Similarly, replacing just 50 million of the world’s estimated 1.3 billion cars with electric vehicles would require more than doubling the world’s annual production of cobalt, neodymium, and lithium, and using more than half the world’s current annual copper production.

Solar and wind farms also need 100 times the land area of fossil fuel-generated electricity, and these resulting changes in land use can have a devastating effect on biodiversity. The effects of bioenergy on biodiversity are worse, and the increased use of crops such as palm oil for biofuels is already contributing to the destruction of rainforests and other natural habitats.

Perplexing financial implications
Surprisingly, more than half (55%) of all global climate expenditure in the years 2011‒2018 was spent on solar and wind energy ‒ a total of US$2,000 billion. Despite this, wind and solar energy still produced only 3% of world energy consumption in the year 2018, while the fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) produced 85% between them. This raises pressing questions about what it would cost to make the transition to 100% renewable energies, as some researchers suggest.

As lead author Coilín ÓhAiseadha says: “It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100%? And how long would it take?”

Engineers have always known that large solar and wind farms are plagued by the so-called “intermittency problem”. Unlike conventional electricity generation sources which provide continuous and reliable energy 24/7 on demand, wind and solar farms only produce electricity when there is wind or sunlight.

“The average household expects their fridges and freezers to run continuously and to be able to turn on and off the lights on demand. Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to,” says Dr Ronan Connolly, co-author of the new review.

The problem is not easily solved by large-scale battery storage because it would require huge batteries covering many hectares of land. Tesla has built a large battery to stabilize the grid in South Australia. It has a capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh and covers a hectare of land. One of the papers reviewed in this new study estimated that, if the state of Alberta, Canada, were to switch from coal to renewable energy, using natural gas and battery storage as back-up, it would require 100 of these large batteries to meet peak demand.

Some researchers have suggested that the variations in energy production can be evened out by building continental electricity transmission networks, e.g., a network connecting wind farms in north-west Europe with solar farms in the south-east, but this requires massive investment. It is likely to create bottlenecks where the capacity of inter-connections is insufficient, and does not do away with the underlying vulnerability to lulls in sun and wind that can last for days on end.

Hurting the poorest
A series of studies from Europe, the U.S. and China shows that carbon taxes tend to lay the greatest burden on the poorest households and rural-dwellers.

Although the primary motivation for green energy policies is concern over climate change, only 5% of climate expenditure has been dedicated to climate adaptation. Climate adaptation includes helping

developing countries to better respond to extreme weather events such as hurricanes. The need to build climate adaptation infrastructure and emergency response systems may conflict with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because fossil fuels are generally the most readily available source of cheap energy for development.

With regards to indigenous peoples, the review highlights the fact that all energy technologies can have severe impacts on local communities, particularly if they are not properly consulted. Cobalt mining, required to make batteries for e-vehicles, has severe impacts on the health of women and children in mining communities, where the mining is often done in unregulated, small-scale, “artisanal” mines. Lithium extraction, also required for manufacturing batteries for e-vehicles, requires large quantities of water, and can cause pollution and shortages of fresh water for local communities.

As lead author, Coilín ÓhAiseadha, points out: “There was worldwide coverage of the conflict between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Dakota Access Pipeline, but what about the impacts of cobalt mining on indigenous peoples in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and what about the impacts of lithium extraction on the peoples of the Atacama Desert? Remember the slogan they chanted at Standing Rock? Mni Wiconi! Water is life! Well, that applies whether you’re Standing Rock Sioux worried about an oil spill polluting the river, or you’re in the Atacama Desert worried about lithium mining polluting your groundwater.”
SOURCE URL: https://www.ceres-science.com/content/Renewables.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by $ Ben_C 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Right - but the sky will fall and we will all die in ten years if we don't do something about global warming - opps, I mean climate change. I am SO tired of the BS.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    it is not about clean energy...it is about "control"....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Exactly.
      We are in a fight to the death about control.
      The enemy knows it. They have already defeated free peoples in South America. They have mostly won the battle in Europe using unknowing minions that are Islamic.
      They are on the verge of defeating the last people in North America - those Americans over age 35 who at least remember what the promise of freedom was although we never actually experienced it. Here they are using unknowing minions from all over the world: recent immigrants from Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa, and millions of brainwashed, over-"educated" morons under 35 years old.
      If we want our children and grandchildren to have ANY chance at the freedom we dreamed of and our ancestors experienced, we had better be willing to risk our "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to win our freedom.
      It won't be done peacefully or by any so-called reforms.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mia767ca 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        the freedom train left the station and went over the cliff long time ago...be careful...you will be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested...work with your children and grandchildren on how to defend their minds and their bodies...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ BobCat 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Go nuclear ! Except for the fact that hilldabeast sold off a quarter of our uranium to the commies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Thorium instead.
      If only someone would move ahead with some plants to prove the Thorium technology works as expected.
      I won't be surprised if the nuclear power solutions come from outside the US. Government and corporate interests are meddling to keep nuclear from succeeding.
      Ditto for fusion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Newton's third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The cost to mine the materials and completely build a windmill or solar array outweighs the cost savings of it's lifetime productivity. This has been proven science over and over again yet it is buried by those on the left. Clean energy from the wind and sun, to date, is nothing more than pure BS!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I've done some work in renewables. It's interesting. It's pushed very hard in public by the lefty greenies. But, in private they don't understand it and don't care to. They don't promote it in private either. Very odd to see.

    My experience in it goes way, way back to the 70s when I was a little kid and my friend's dad had a solar company that had been established on the incentives of Carter. Way back. A problem then, and now is that these systems need to be well engineered or they become some expensive mess. And, that's mostly what we have now with them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Isn'r ir a bit presumptuous to assume we mere humans can seriously affect climate conditions? We might cause a little flutter, but real change? Preposterous!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      All part and parcel of the leftist mindset. Their fantasies are their realities and they just can't seem to grasp the cognitive dissonance there - especially when it threatens their real goal: power over others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Idiocracy42 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Well, I suppose we could with some drastic measures, but are we? Climate changes regardless; we manipulate 'data' to the point it is meaningless and call it science.

      I personally don't buy into AGW theory, but am firmly of the belief that as a species we are quite destructive to our environment. We're also seriously gullible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Anthropogenic Global 'Warning' !

    As we have learned, still learning and vetting, that we are near the end of a cycle, a cycle of civilization, consequentially, where civilization is destroyed, the earth changes, and those that survive will likely carry the torch of mankind after a natural event that happens around every 12,000 years....

    Laughing, although it's really no laughing matter but with this knowledge and at this moment in time...WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?...'Even if', using the most efficient renewable and non renewable resources, oil, gas and coal, to power our present civilization, has in fact, damaged our environment beyond what the occasional accident has...
    ...the earth will arise unscathed by what happened in the past 12,000 years and restart anew.

    It's time we all be advised and deal with reality. Instead of pointless rhetoric, pointless arguments, lies, corruption and misrepresentations and begin to plan ahead for that new future, to the survival of not just mankind but of every value we've created, learned and timely tested to the best of our understanding.
    We will likely need these fuels to get that 'new' civilization underway as well...there will be no other way except the old fashioned way.

    You make very valid points, Freedom. and all of you here as well, but there are much bigger issues we as a species should concentrate on...but our nemesis, those without reason or mutuality, will not even listen to the simplest of facts, never mind the truths of our existence and the ways of the cosmos.

    It would seem from our perspective, they reach for one last hurrah and care less if anything or anyone survives into the next cycle...I am beginning to wonder if that is exactly their point of 'Intention'.

    Nothing against the conversation, Freedom...I just had to say my piece, somewhere, at least once.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    What? There can't be any diversion from the leftist utopia! Damn the coal power plants! Full speed off the cliff of the Green New Deal! [/s]
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Abaco 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      The Green New Deal is really criminal. As I eluded to earlier...You can't even get these people to place appropriate wind turbines when they should. Yet, they want to force everybody to tear down old buildings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by malcolmreynolds 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    As noted in Atlas Shrugged they want to control everything. While they are pushing the renewable energy solutions they are in no way suggesting you take control of your own life and producing for yourself. It is all about "the grid", and they want every device on the grid accounted for, and the ability to turn it off as they choose. And just like in Atlas Shrugged the grid gets more fragile and more dependent every day. Use these "technologies" they are promoting for your own production, for you own independence, for your own freedom. Put up a PV array if it makes sense where you live, put up wind generation if it makes sense where you live. Harvest wood, and other resources for your own independence and ability to produce. This is not what "THEY" intend to be the take away message, but use it as an opportunity. They will be rationing power, they will be requiring control, sacrifice for the needs of the many BS.... Take this opportunity while you can to use these technologies to take care of your needs and in doing so everyone benefits. Off-grid like Galts Gulch....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Theses Green New Deal people are dreamers They have no clue about energy production of any type. In particular that women in this movement have any idea that the elastic in their underwear is derived from petroleum-based products. For all of them in this naive movement don't understand they will be living in their homes and apartments, etc, at night without lights, the rest of any household appliances won't work either. Also, there could be a lithium battery shortage because of this scheme. They don't know anything about the carbon-based storage systems. Carbon is a dirty word in their vocabulary. The dirty word for me is "Climate Change". Yes, the climate may be changing but it really isn't caused by man alone or cattle. I refuse to become a vegetarian for these idiots. They rely on the scientists who twist the facts on atmospheric dynamics and exclude many other factors. I was watching a program on Mammoth Mtn, which classified as a supervolcano in California and a possible eruption. They have been measuring one meter a year growing bulge near its summit and the mapping of magma chambers. There was no time frame for a possible eruption but that would ruin the Green New Dealers day big time if it blows.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    It has never been about being green, that was a scam started when the schools opened, post Reagan, to communist party card carrying Gorbachev with his green religion to brainwash our children, who teachers then asked to convince parents about. The whole US gov side of it was always about control and limiting what we could do or have, ala: UN Agenda 21, plagiarized by AOC in full as a new green deal. Nonsense, same old deal, just much more expensive than we had been paying since 1995! Along the ling climate got confused with pollution, and tey were lumped as one. They are not. Pollution is what Nancy has in SF with the street people and sewage and needles flowing into the ocean. Climate is Sun driven, with influence from the Moon and Earth cycles. We are curretnly in a Grand Solar Minimum, col, and Congress has no way of changing that. Add to it, for teh first time in thousenands of years, the Earth magnetic poles are whifting, and tht is a whopper of cold possibel, that is what buried Anartica originally. We did a study of the green cars and teh batteries, and found the carbon footpring, if it even matters, from production to disposal is far greater than that of the has driven auto! Gore has become richer over carbon credits, which is the scam of our time, it changes nothing about weather globally. Peole have been denied science education in school for yars, they get science indocrination.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Son_of_the_Right_Herder 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    While I agree with the findings of this article. I do believe different conclusions can be drawn from it. I disagree with "Their is no such thing as clean energy" Does climate change pose a real threat and are renewable energy sources the answer? I believe it does play a real threat to ecosystem diversity, weather formation, storm severity, agricultural development, and the health of individuals who will have to cope with pollution and the destruction of the natural environment. This article raises a point which should be emphasized, "Are the Renewable power sources that we currently are pursuing actually helping?" Signs point to not likely. Not all hope is lost, I believe the free market searches for innovation and rewards it handsomely. Currently we have alternative methods such as Thorium reactors which aren't being discussed that provide massive amounts of power for a fraction of the waste of Uranium nuclear reactors and while providing a safer/easier to maintain fission reaction overall. We don't discuss thorium reactors as any talk of Nuclear fission is political suicide as it stands. Chernobyl and other such disasters have left a sour taste in everyone's mouth. But I don't believe we should resign these technologies to the waste basket. They present a stepping stone for future innovation that may lead to some valuable and environmentally greener discoveries. It's important to remember Greener ≠ expensive or at least it doesn't have to. Greener technology designs have all ready lead to a plethora of cost saving methods/materials, just because they result in more efficient consumption/utilization of resources.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Son_of_the_Right_Herder 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I don't think that it justifies the use of regulation to impose strict "green policies" to be clear. However, I don't think that renewable energy should be discouraged even if the short term benefit is null. By learning from these results we might achieve energy production methods that are truly green and cost effective.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        The only thing being discouraged is government mandated so-called renewable energy and honest productive people being robbed to pay for it. None of the measures will have any significant effect on climate change, and human activity is insignificant compared to natural climate changes. New less expensive sources of energy and economic methods to make existing sources cleaner and more efficient are being pursued by many in the free market without mandates.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo