HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Science (Group) » Doublethink in science. ...

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 10:49 AM

Doublethink in science. Coal is a renewable resource?

In issues in energy and science, there is, especially in the public, a whole lot of what George Orwell called in 1984 "doublethink."

I'm old enough to know all about 1984 and Orwell, but it's possible that this nightmare book is less well known than in modern times than it was in my time.

For the uninitiated:

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.


Wikipedia "Doublethink"

On the right, we have the absurd notion for instance, that the orange fool is advancing patriotism and, for what it's worth, Christianity.

On the left, we have the notion that wind power represents "green energy," "sustainable energy," and "renewable energy," when, as I have shown elsewhere in this space, the coal required to make the steel for the posts holding these monstrosities up in a case where they represented significant energy, would amount the addition of massive amounts of CO2 emissions, on the order of current annual emission rates for everything (roughly 35 billion tons of CO2 per year) for the steel alone, never mind the copper, lanthanides, concrete, etc... And of course, this infrastructure would need to be replaced every 20 years or so.

These are both examples of doublethink, on one hand, an appeal to belief, on the other, an appeal to ignorance of the details.

Anyway, I came across this paper in my general reading and opened it since I am always thinking about ways of getting rid of the industrial chemical requirements associated with dangerous petroleum:

A Preliminary Study on the Role of the Internal and External Surfaces of Nano-ZSM-5 Zeolite in the Alkylation of Benzene with Methanol (Ji Qian, Guang Xiong, Guang Xiong, Jiaxu Liu, Chunyan Liu, and Hongchen Guo, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 21, 9006-9016.)

It contains this precious remark:

The conventional source of toluene and xylene is naphtha, which is expensive and limited as fossil energy resources. Toluene and xylene can also be obtained by the alkylation of benzene with MeOH. On one hand, MeOH is a renewable resource, which can be produced from biomass, coal, and natural gas via syngas. The technologies for the production of MeOH from coal and natural gas are very mature currently.


The bold and italics are of course, mine.

The authors are Chinese, and one hopes that it's just bad grammar in translation, a misplaced modifier and really not "doublethink."

These days, one never knows.

I trust you're having a pleasant weekend.

21 replies, 1134 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Doublethink in science. Coal is a renewable resource? (Original post)
NNadir Jun 2019 OP
SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #1
NNadir Jun 2019 #2
HuskyOffset Jun 2019 #3
NNadir Jun 2019 #4
angstlessk Jun 2019 #6
HuskyOffset Jun 2019 #7
NNadir Jun 2019 #8
HuskyOffset Jun 2019 #9
NNadir Jun 2019 #13
HuskyOffset Jun 2019 #19
Jim__ Jun 2019 #10
hunter Jun 2019 #12
Jim__ Jun 2019 #15
hunter Jun 2019 #16
Jim__ Jun 2019 #17
hunter Jun 2019 #18
Jim__ Jun 2019 #20
hunter Jun 2019 #21
shadowmayor Jun 2019 #5
Nitram Jun 2019 #11
NNadir Jun 2019 #14

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:00 PM

1. It is renewable

If you have several hundred centuries to wait for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:07 PM

2. Thousands of centuries, actually, although this said, the Boudouard Reaction makes something...

...very much like "synthetic coal" possible, something which might be explored for use in certain materials engineering processes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:19 PM

3. Wait a sec...

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:29 PM - Edit history (2)

On the left, we have the notion that wind power represents "green energy," "sustainable energy," and "renewable energy," when, as I have shown elsewhere in this space, the coal required to make the steel for the posts holding these monstrosities up in a case where they represented significant energy, would amount the addition of massive amounts of CO2 emissions, on the order of current annual emission rates for everything (roughly 35 billion tons of CO2 per year) for the steel alone, never mind the copper, lanthanides, concrete, etc... And of course, this infrastructure would need to be replaced every 20 years or so.


Is the author of this seriously claiming that wind energy is not green, sustainable, and renewable energy because of the CO2 released during the manufacturing of the windmills?

I just want to be sure I'm understanding that paragraph correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuskyOffset (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:48 PM

4. Yes. That is precisely what I'm saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 02:25 PM

6. "roughly 35 billion tons of CO2 per year"

How many steel posts does this number infer? All of them? If so

.. if it assumes 'all' the steel posts, instead of 'per year' it would be 'per 20 years', as that would be the lifespan of wind turbines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 02:32 PM

7. Seriously?

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:30 PM - Edit history (2)

You're seriously claiming that the CO2 output for creating the wind turbines, which will operate and produce electricity for 20 years (per your post), will exceed the CO2 output of burning coal to produce the same amount of electricity that those wind turbines will produce?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuskyOffset (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 02:48 PM

8. Look, there's lots of evidence for the uselessness of the wind industry.

The biggest piece of evidence is the fact that the expenditure of more than one trillion dollars on the wind industry in the last ten years has done nothing to address climate change.

We hit 415 ppm of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere this year, and the last ten years have seen entirely unprecedented increases of almost 25 ppm, never before seen in a period of ten years.

It, combined with the solar, geothermal, and tidal energy, produced, as of 2017, 10.63 exajoules of energy on a planet consuming 584.98 exajoules of energy.

The fastest growing form of energy in the 21st century is coal.

It takes 770 grams of coal to make a kg of steel, as I pointed out in another post here recently, and no, the planet cannot afford to squander this much steel and oxidize this much coal to make stupid wind turbines that last for just 20 years before becoming landfill.

A Detailed Thermodynamic Accounting of Yet Another Wind to Hydrogen Scheme.

Unfortunately many of the graphics in that post are no longer visible but the picture of the steel post of a wind turbine that was supposed to power ten homes (but didn't) makes the steel intensity of this useless, if popular, scheme abundantly clear.

I know this flies in the face of popular fantasy, but reality does not depend on belief, but is simply reality.

Believe what you want, but facts matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:09 PM

9. I noticed

that you didn't answer my very relevant question, so I'll ask it again:

Are you claiming that the CO2 output for creating the wind turbines, which will operate and produce electricity for 20 years (per your post), will exceed the CO2 output of burning coal to produce the same amount of electricity that those wind turbines will produce?

This question is at the heart of the push for alternatives to burning fossil fuels, namely the premise that, on a watt for watt basis, that alternatives create less CO2. Your claim that making the wind turbines releases too much CO2 begs the question, so I obliged.

So now please, answer the question.


UPDATE:
Don't bother replying, there is no need, as we have the answer excellently illustrated by reply #7 in this thread (thank you Jim__), which shows that arguing against any of the alternatives to coal on the basis that they produce too much CO2 (vs coal) is ridiculous in the extreme. Further, arguing against wind vs other alternatives, at least those in the graph shown in reply #7, are also a non-starter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuskyOffset (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 09:12 PM

13. In general, what one can derive from text, whether written or verbal, derives from...

...one's level of knowledge in hearing or reading the text; this is true whether it is an answer to a question in any setting.

This is why the process of learning starts off slowly but ultimately accelerates as one ages, until of course, one's intellectual capacity declines from "the slings and arrows" of the neurological diseases of aging.

Now, if I give a lecture of piezoelectric tensors to a high school student who has repeatedly failed his or her 9th grade algebra course, that person will derive no benefit. It will waste my time and theirs.

This the science section of DU. I should be comfortable here, because I am a scientist; and I am comfortable here. I consider one of the moderators here to be a personal friend, an internet friend, but a friend all the same.

In the last 24 hours I have written 4 posts here, all of which are discussions of papers in the primary scientific literature which I read regularly and broadly with some diligence.

I write posts here for two reasons; one being that writing about the things I read and want to remember helps reify them in my mind. They also represent a kind of diary about what I was thinking on particular days. If, as a side benefit, someone learns something from them or is intellectually stimulated by them, well, that makes me very happy.

In response to a question about whether steel, really consumes as much coal and the electricity it generates, I directed the questioner to a previous post in which I addressed the issue.

Here is the text, which contains the following text:

The profound environmental problem with so called "renewable energy" revolves largely around its high mass intensity. I noted, with reference to an article in Nature Geosciences in the previous thread this about the mass intensity of wind energy were it dedicated to making enough energy just to make enough motor fuels to displace petroleum.

12,000 TWh is 43.2 exajoules. By simple math 727 exajoules is 16.8 times larger, or in "percent talk" 1,680% more than what what the WWF predicted for wind and solar in "by 2050" talk.

The translates into 53 billion tons of steel, 5.2 billion tons of aluminum, and 673 million tons of copper. The production of steel involves coal, the current process for the production of aluminum utilizes petroleum coke electrodes (which are oxidized), and copper involves intense heat and the release of copious quantities of sulfur oxides.

Renewable? Really? Whither the ores for this pixilated process?


What I did not note was the coal intensity of steel. The world coal association has a wonderful page on the subject of making steel. It is here: Uses for coal, how steel is produced. It has interesting factoids like this:

Coking coal is converted to coke by driving off impurities to leave almost pure carbon. The physical properties of coking coal cause the coal to soften, liquefy and then resolidify into hard but porous lumps when heated in the absence of air. Coking coal must also have low sulphur and phosphorous contents. Almost all metallurgical coal is used in coke ovens.

The coking process consists of heating coking coal to around 1000-1100ºC in the absence of oxygen to drive off the volatile compounds (pyrolysis). This process results in a hard porous material - coke. Coke is produced in a coke battery, which is composed of many coke ovens stacked in rows into which coal is loaded. The coking process takes place over long periods of time between 12-36 hours in the coke ovens. Once pushed out of the vessel the hot coke is then quenched with either water or air to cool it before storage or is transferred directly to the blast furnace for use in iron making.


...and...

Around 0.6 tonnes (600 kg) of coke produces 1 tonne (1000 kg) of steel, which means that around 770 kg of coal are used to produce 1 tonne of steel through this production route. Basic Oxygen Furnaces currently produce about 74% of the world’s steel. A further 25% of steel is produced in Electric Arc Furnaces.


This means that to produce 53 billion tons of steel would require 37 billion tons of coal, most of which would be oxidized to CO2, thus producing about 135 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Current annual emissions of carbon dioxide from all dangerous fossil fuels is roughly one fourth this amount, roughly 35 billion tons per year and rising despite the world wide rote enthusiasm for so called "renewable energy."


The internal reference makes reference to another reference, a scientific publication this one:

Metals for a low-carbon society

It contains the following text:

However, this transition will also cause much additional global demand for raw materials: for an equivalent installed capacity, solar and wind facilities require up to 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminium, and 50 times more iron, copper and glass than fossil fuels or nuclear energy (Supplementary Fig. 1). Yet, current production of wind and solar energy meets only about 1% of global demand, and hydroelectricity meets about 7% (ref. 2).

If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh (ref. 2) to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)7, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities (Fig. 2). This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. This rise in production will be added to the accelerating global demand for ferrous, base and minor metals, from both developing and developed countries, which inflates currently by about 5% per year5,6.


This analysis should give pause to engage in critical thinking, but if it doesn't, well, that's not my problem,.

25,000 TWh is about 90 exajoules, or roughly 15% of the amount of energy humanity was consuming as of 2017, according to the EIA. Of course, in 2050, when the people making these predictions will likely be dead, and the people who will have to live with the absurdity of their lazy predictions will be suffering severe deprivation because our lazy generation was happy to lazily google their way to websites, and energy demand may be more like 600 or 700 exajoules, mostly produced by marginal fuels.

Now, the figures for steel 700 grams of coal/kg steel, do not include mining the steel, transporting the ore, machining the steel into parts, transporting the parts, all of which have a carbon intensity of their own. In addition their is the matter of building roads through the pristine ecosystems being converted into wind industrial parks, asphalt maintenance trucks, and the matter of hauling that shit away in 20 years.

I note, with disgust at poor thinking and wishful thinking, that this enterprise will consume the best ores, a process nearly completed for all of the elements required in a piece of shit wind turbine, which will have the effect of raising the energy requirements attached to this mining intense enterprise.

Finally I note that wind turbines require redundant systems to back them up when the wind isn't blowing. The cost of these systems, including the cost of steel, copper, concrete and aluminum in them should accrue to wind, but doesn't, because of the intellectually dishonest practice of looking at the failed so called "renewable energy" in isolation from its supporting infrastructure, the enormous financial and environmental cost of redundancy, requiring two systems to do what one can do.

Now if one is lazy, and will accept any answer from any person googling for a few seconds so long as the answer is the answer one wants to hear, one is engaging in disingenuous rhetoric and not curiosity or a sincere interest in the facts

Sorry, reference to a googled graphic as authoritative is not an seeking a legitimate answer, and buying it lock stock and barrel is intellectual laziness.

If one is asking a legitimate question one takes a tone like a correspondent in the post about the thermodynmics of wind to hydrogen just referenced:

Have been reading news and thoughts at DU for many many years. Decided to get in the conversation here to keep from randomly screaming at head-in-the-sand folks I encounter on the regular here in central Texas.

Will keep working my way through your posts and recommended links. Honestly, reading that long piece of yours turned into a respite from the daily onslaught of political news. This, even as the consequence of humanity not getting real about carbon emissions rang thru loud and clear. Ya might see me chime in now and again with with questions, some of which may be more dumb than I realize.

(For whatever it's worth, I've been an atheist for three decades now, and science fills the spiritual space and time that church going would require. I have an underutilized degree in economics, roughly remember my calculus, and generally can digest topics of chemistry/physics as a know-it-all daughterofanengineer. Basically, I'm a nerd.)



...to which I responded...

The dumbest quesitons are the ones you don't ask...

...I have made it a point in my life to work as hard as I can to be the dumbest person in the room as often as is possible, and now whenever I go to a talk that is beyond me, I make a point of struggling to find a question to ask, especially if the topic is completely new to me.

It's a good way to learn.

Almost 100% of speakers will be patient and accepting.

I recall one talk I went to where I guy asked a speaker on the genetics of the ocean something along the lines of, "did space aliens build the pyramids," and I admired the patience and respect that the speaker, Kay Bidle of Rutgers Department of Oceanography, gave the questioner.

Prof. Kay Bidle, Rutgers University: The Invisible World of Marine Microbes: How Earth’s Smallest Living Things Have the Biggest Impact on How Our Ocean Works

My sons still laugh at the face (as an audience member) I made when the question was asked, but Dr. Bidle was very gracious, and I learned a little bit about patience from his manner of response every bit as important as what I learned all about ocean microbes in the body of the talk itself.

It was a beautiful thing.

I'm sure you won't ask me about space aliens and the pyramids, but if you do, don't worry about what I think. Questions are good, all of them.

After all these years, now that I'm an old man, when I go to certain kinds of regular meetings, people expect a question from me, since I've gotten better at it, and I'm very proud of that.

You can't be good at anything you don't practice.

Thanks again for your kind words and again, for thinking. Politics are important, but in a Democracy we cannot guide our best leaders unless we know what we're talking about. The time of Trump will pass; but the problems of the planet will still need to be addressed and the more we know, the better we'll do.


But there is another kind of dumb question, a question in which a clearly uneducated person at a low level asks a question to which he or she insists must have the answer he or she wants to hear, and not a question connected with reality.

I was satisfied with my answer to the question, which is all encompassing. The wind industry is useless. It has not addressed climate change; it is not addressing climate change and it will not address climate change. There are literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of papers in the scientific literature on life cycle analysis of wind turbines, and not all of them agree. However one does need to think critically about whatever one reads or sees.

It doesn't matter if the reason it is useless is limited to steel, to aluminum, to concrete, to lanthanides, to copper...

It hasn't worked. It isn't working. It won't work.


That's a fact and facts matter.

I'm a scientist, and I'm tired of lazy people claiming rudely demanding that I answer questions whenever they ask. It's not my job to educate the ineducable, and I feel compelled to answer questions having answers with which I am familiar only when I am speaking to someone who has an open mind.

It is a waste of time to address closed minds.

Have a nice life. I need to expand my ignore list, since I am disinterested in the people who have caused this tragedy through laziness and inattention.

Have a nice life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 07:54 PM

19. Wow, now that is a proper burn!

NNadir, if you haven't plonked me into your ignore file, thank you for taking the time to reply with such detail. I appreciate the effort, and I will accept my chastisement, as it was definitely earned. It's a lot of info and it will take a while to work through it all, but I will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuskyOffset (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:17 PM

10. Here's what FactCheck says about the life-cycle carbon footprint of wind energy.

From FactCheck:



...

When we contacted the DOI for support for Zinke’s claims, spokeswoman Heather Swift told us by email that, when it comes to wind’s carbon footprint, Zinke “was referring to the life-cycle emissions, manufacturing of materials and component parts, and the transportation and construction of the facilities.”

It’s true that wind power isn’t a zero emission energy source. Greenhouse gas emissions are produced when wind turbines are manufactured, built, maintained and decommissioned. But the “life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar, wind, and nuclear technologies are considerably lower and less variable than emissions from technologies powered by combustion-based natural gas and coal,” says the NREL.

To be more exact, wind energy produces around 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, Garvin A. Heath, a senior scientist at NREL, and colleagues concluded after reviewing the scientific literature. That’s compared with about 980 g CO2/kWh for coal and roughly 465 g CO2/kWh for natural gas, Heath found.

In other words, coal’s carbon footprint is almost 90 times larger than that of wind. The footprint of natural gas is more than 40 times larger.

...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 06:13 PM

12. That chart neglects the commitment to natural gas each kilowatt of wind or solar power represents.

When you look at the capacity factors of wind or solar, and account for the gas that will be burned when wind or solar power isn't available, wind and solar don't look so attractive.

A hybrid electric grid where half or more of the energy is coming from natural gas isn't going to save the world, especially in a growing world economy where more and more people are expecting to buy consumer goods such as air conditioners, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, and other home appliances.

Wind and solar energy is the best thing that ever happened to the natural gas industry.

Unfortunately there is enough cheap, extractable gas in the ground to destroy the world as we know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 10:44 AM

15. The obverse of your claim is that every kilowatt of electricity generated by wind power ...

... is a kilowatt that was not generated by natural gas. The article accompanying the chart points out that 6.3% of the electricity generated in the US in 2017 was generated by wind power. That's around 275 billion kWh. Our current goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. This contributes to that goal. Waiting to act until we have a general consensus as to the absolute best way to proceed is not an option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 01:54 PM

16. It's feel good nonsense. Like a smoker cutting down from a pack-a-day habit...

... to four or five packs a week.

The only way to quit smoking is to quit smoking.

The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels.

Wind and solar are not going to magically displace fossil fuels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 04:25 PM

17. Wrong analogy. It's much more like breathing polluted air. Every breath is bad for you.

Not breathing is worse.

The US uses more than 4 trillion kWh of electricity per year. We can't just stop using electricity, and, at least in the near term, we do not have a non-polluting substitute to generate that power. Switching to less polluting sources in the short term is our only option. Wind power is far less polluting than natural gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 06:27 PM

18. Zing. Yet another wind power supporter conflates air pollution and climate change.

Invariably, wind and solar enthusiasts overlook the horrors of natural gas.

Maybe because it's "natural." I don't know.

What I do know is that the wind and solar energy are not viable without natural gas "backup" power, which actually isn't any kind of backup power at all but the primary energy source. Wind and solar power will not carry us out of the hole we've dug; will not stop the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and oceans.

Only quitting fossil fuels will do that.

We do have options. Nuclear power might be one, as amply evidenced in the chart you posted, since nuclear power *is* capable of entirely displacing fossil fuels in a high energy industrial society.

Rethinking our definitions of economic "productivity" is another option. We ought to be paying people to experiment with lifestyles having very low environmental footprints, measuring the success of these experiments in terms happiness. (We might start among the homeless...)

I can easily imagine a world where most people don't have or want automobiles, have plenty of time to walk to their neighborhood markets to shop for their mostly vegetarian meals, etc.. Nevertheless they are happy because the have good health care, good educations (so they are never bored), no more children than they can comfortably support with plenty of time to care for them, and unhurried vacations that last months.

But God Forbid I tell anyone their cars or windmills are not green. Kermit the Frog said they were.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 3, 2019, 11:05 AM

20. I no more conflated climate change with air pollution than you conflated it with smoking cigarettes.

This discussion is not going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 3, 2019, 02:50 PM

21. No it's not. People insist on viewing wind turbines as progress...

... the same way people used to view smokestacks as progress.

I don't see wind turbines littering the hillsides or seascapes as progress, I see them as greenwash for the filthy natural gas industry.

My smoking analogy is a good one.

We're building wind turbines for an industrial economy powered mostly by natural gas, and worse, we're promoting that as a good thing.

Well, yeah, it's better than coal.

But it is equivalent to a heavy smoker cutting back on their own smoking while promoting their own reduced smoking habit to non-smokers.

NOT smoking in the first place is always going to be the healthier option.

NOT burning fossil fuels is always going to be the healthier option for the earth's environment and all the sentient, intelligent beings who live here, not just humans.

Unfortunately it's always a hard sell telling people their work ethics and "productivity" are not making the world a better place, and that we'd all be better off if they just stayed home and read a book, watched some birds, or took an art class.

It's especially difficult selling it to people promoting the "lite" version of our high energy industrial consumer economy.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:49 PM

5. And

How much coal and steel and cement is required to build a nuke plant and to mine the uranium? Or a coal plant? How much material for a gas plant and all the piping that goes with It? How do these numbers compare too the wind and solar industries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sat Jun 1, 2019, 05:52 PM

11. Nnadir, you are grinding that axe just a little too hard.

CO2 released during the manufacture of wind turbines is minuscule compared to the amount that would be released by the combustion of coal to produce the same amount of energy a wind turbine produces during its lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 2, 2019, 08:33 AM

14. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm grinding it hard enough.

I count the whole system, including the redundancies and the thermodynamic losses of shutting dangerous fossil fuel plants down and restarting them.

I have an idea. Boil a pot of water as the sun goes down. When it falls below the horizon, turn the burner off. When the sun rises over the horizon, turn the heat back on. Does the water boil instantly, or do you have to invest as much heat in it as you did at dusk?

My recent posts on thermodynamics in this space, although some of the graphics have been lost because of a change in software at the originating source have convinced me that I am not making the point strongly enough.

(Of course, if one thinks of one self in Cassandriac terms, one should not expect one's points to be believed, true or not.)

The wind industry is a disaster, pure and simple, a scheme to provide quite literally a smoke screen for the fossil fuel industry.

Again, and again and again, and again: Humanity spent a trillion dollars on this crap in the last decade that will be landfill in less than two decades.

The result speaks for itself:

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Week beginning on May 19, 2019: 414.74 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 411.44 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 390.53 ppm
Last updated: June 1, 2019

I don't have all that much time left on this planet; I reflect on my mortality constantly, so I have no horse in this race, other than the fact that I am ashamed of the ridiculous myths my generation has bough into.

One of the most pernicious of these myths is that cheering for putting huge steel towers, access roads and similar stuff worthy of industrial parks in pristine wilderness is "environmentalism." It isn't.

I'm a scientist, and my commitment to my craft is not to elevate theory over experiment. If the theory disagrees with the experiment, there is something wrong with the theory.

I've heard the theory that wind would save the day my whole damned adult life. When the experiment began, again at a cost higher than the GDP of Indonesia, a nation with more than a quarter of a billion people in it, I believed it would work.

It didn't work. It isn't working. It won't work.

As it didn't work, and isn't working, I've spent a lot of time looking into the basis of the theory and have convinced myself that the theory, and not the experimental result is wrong, and since future generations are being screwed out of their rightful inheritance of a safe and beautiful planet, it makes me angry.

Say what you will about me, but I provide references, not just hand waving rhetoric.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread