Material Intensity of Various Forms of Energy, a Nice Graphic.

[NNadir]

I don't have time to discuss this paper in the current issue of Environmental Science and Technology in any detail, but I'll reference it:

Closing the Infrastructure Gap for Decarbonization: The Case for an Integrated Mineral Supply Agreement Saleem H. Ali, Sophia Kalantzakos, Roderick Eggert, Roland Gauss, Constantine Karayannopoulos, Julie Klinger, Xiaoyu Pu, Kristin Vekasi, and Robert K. Perrons Environmental Science & Technology 2022 56 (22), 15280-15289

Here's figure 3 from the paper:



The caption:

Figure 3. Materials needed for different forms of power generation. Figure based on data from U.S. Department of Energy Quadrennial Energy Review 2015.

The figure pretty much speaks for itself.

Using the data found in the Danish Energy Agency's Master Register of Wind Turbines I have calculated that the average lifetime for a wind turbine before it becomes landfill is under 20 years.

Solar cells become electronic waste is 20 to 25 years.

We are not going to mine our way out of climate change, and the longer we believe that we can, the worse it's going to be. Making steel, concrete and glass is all highly carbon dependent, concrete being worse than steel, steel being worse than glass, but all of them environmentally problematic.

Energy efficiency is important; I argue regularly for process intensification via heat exchanger networks, but mass efficiency and land efficiency are also important if we want to get serious about climate change. We're not serious, but if we want to be, these things need to be considered.

I trust you're enjoying the run up to the Thanksgiving holidays.

[bello]

1. Horse Pucky

This chart represents out of date and cherry picked data.

Before the casual reader intuits from the chart that coal is about 90% cheaper than solar and wind, they should ask themselves:

If energy from coal is so much cheaper, why are there no new coal generators being commissioned in America? Why are coal burners being decommissioned all over America? The market has spoken, coal is too expensive. And don’t look at environment without looking at the environmental cost of mining coal and the environmental cost of toxic coal ash dump.

And, no, modern solar cells will not be electronic waste in 20 to 25 years. Just because the output drops by about 1% per year is no reason to trash them when they still produce 75% as much free energy as they did when new.

Also, new technology is much better at recycling as it was just a few years ago. New wind turbine blades are being developed that are recyclable. New battery technology is being developed that is much cheaper and recyclable.

That figure does not speak for itself, it speaks for someone who has an agenda.

[NNadir]

2. Well if somebody believes that scientific publications are "fake news,"...

...they are, of course invited to write to the journal and demand a retraction, but usually the editors require some evidence of serious standing.

I don't think the editors will take any of it too seriously, in the present case, since they're certainly aware of people who hate science and, as the antivaxxers did, "do their own research" to make sure that they only hear what they want to hear.

I note a lot of contempt for science among advocates of the solar scam that sucked up trillions of dollars and did nothing at all to address climate change.

It's hardly surprising anymore.

I have an agenda to be sure. It involves speaking for reality and valuing it over dogma, wishful thinking, and denial.

The planet burned all summer. People died all over the world from extreme heat. Vast glaciers melted while major river systems elsewhere dried up. Major crops failed in unrelenting droughts. If, in response people want to chant mantras, they are, in my opinion useless, but again that's just my opinion.

[hunter]

3. Why should a utility care what solar costs?

They can close coal fired plants, convert to hybrid solar/gas power systems, claim they are "green," raise the cost of electricity, and increase the volumes of the revenue streams they take a cut from.

Solar and wind are the best thing that could have happened to the gas extraction industry. Solar and wind will only prolong our dependence on natural gas and the net result will be the same amount of greenhouse gasses eventually get dumped into the atmosphere as would have if we didn't use solar or wind power at all.

Solar and wind power won't save the world. They can't even support all eight billion of us.

Like it or not, the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power.