Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

kbd512 · 2024-04-19 18:26:59

SpaceNut,

Every power generating system is an engineered solution. You can buy a photovoltaic panel or wind turbine, but you can't buy an "off the shelf" photovoltaic or wind turbine farm, because no such animal exists. Every site is unique. The requirement for steel and concrete will be unique to the firmness of the ground that equipment is mounted on. You decide whether or not you want power, you pay money to an engineering firm, and then they figure out what parts they can buy or design and fabricate themselves.

You know what part of an electric power grid is a bespoke solution?

All the step-up and step-down power transformers fit that description. I'm not talking about the ones you see on power lines, I'm talking about the ones you see at step-up or step-down stations, as well as the power inverters if on-panel inverters are not used. When you pay for a photovoltaic farm, the people purchasing the power pay for all the non-standard equipment unique to the massive power fluctuations produced by photovoltaics and wind turbines, so that power surges and drops don't crash the entire grid. All that equipment costs real money, none of it is an off the shelf solution, and all of it must be paid by the consumer for the privilege of having unreliable intermittent energy on the grid, because a reliable grid doesn't require such equipment. This is engineering reality vs glossy sales brochure fantasy.

These thermal engineering solutions are going to start providing more than just power. They're going to collect and supply CO2, Argon, Xenon, Neon, Krypton, Sulfur, and other saleable industrial products so that those products don't have to be produced from scratch by burning something like natural gas or coal, solely to obtain that industrial product. Neon is required to make microchips. Argon is required for welding. Sulfur is required to make Sulfuric acid. The multiple revenue streams mean that the electric power consumer doesn't have to pay for the full cost of the plant, and consumers of the industrial products don't have to pay for specialty plants that burn fuel just to produce something that would otherwise be a natural byproduct of burning fuel.

SpaceNut · 2024-04-19 19:11:03

The bespoke is the power plant custom designed to specifications that make it unique.

A solar panel and a battery are commercial off the shelf as it has known specification for use at a given voltage and current.

A battery is the same for its capabilities for use.

The home grid connection is commercial as its going to provide from the gauge wire to the home electrical panel just 2 single phases from the transformer on the pole rated to deliver the necessary power to the home.

The making of offshoots is done not by the company creating the power but by those using it and they create commercial off the shelf items.

kbd512 · 2024-04-19 20:06:51

SpaceNut,

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here.

You can purchase a PT-6A engine right now from Pratt & Whitney if you have the money. It's an off the shelf item by that definition. If you think you can bolt it onto any existing plane and go flying, then you're mistaken. The mere fact that you can lay down cash and walk out with a product means very little. There's clearly a lot of engineering work that goes into making sure that the plane in question can use said engine, as-installed. Merely being able to purchase a PT-6A tells me very little about the suitability of the engine for the plane it's bolted to, nor what a plane with that engine installed might be able to do.

Calliban · 2024-04-22 09:02:55

World copper demand is now outstripping supply, leading to rising prices.
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/c … rtage-here

Mines in Chile are struggling to maintain output due to declining ore grades. China is the world's largest consumer, but can longer maintain supply from its own reserves, leading to growing imports. This suggests to me that whatever ambitions we have for the future, they must make do with a copper supply that is lower, or at least no greater than, what we are mining today. There are solutions that would allow us to live that way. But they generally aren't the ones that those in power are pursuing or want to hear about.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-04-22 09:04:42)

Calliban · 2024-04-22 10:09:02

EVs may never achieve widespread adoption, due to inherently poor energy efficiency which damages their economics.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene … ption.html

tahanson43206 · 2024-04-22 13:47:59

For Calliban re #380

To save your (many) busy readers a dive into the article you linked, please summarize the argument in support of the rather surprising statement you've included ahead of the link. It seems to me the statement is ridiculous, but that's just a first impression. You wouldn't have written that text if you didn't believe it, so I assume there must be strong arguments in support.

(th)

Calliban · 2024-04-22 15:43:41

TH, the article isn't long and explains better than I could. But in summary:

1) The amount of embodied energy needed to build an EV and its battery are substantially greater than ICEV with comparable performance.

2) All else being equal, the amount of work energy needed to drive a car along a stretch of road will be the same regardless of how it is powered, because friction, air resistance and gravity losses are the same regardless of the vehicle energy source. So a ICE must raise comparable power to EV tackling the same stretch of road. But all else isn't equal, because most EVs are heavier than ICEs. So work energy requirements are greater.

3) At the point of use, one could argue that an EV is more energy efficient because its motors are 90% efficient, whereas an ICE is only 20-30% efficient. But this ignores the fact that most electricity is generated by burning fuels, which are transmitted to customers through extensive transmission systems. When powerplant efficiency, transmission losses and charging losses are factored into the calculation, real energy efficiency per unit work ends up being similar.

But the EV is heavier and requires more work to drive along the road. It also has huge embodied energy. So its aggregate energy costs will always be greater than an ICE per mile travelled. This is what G&R are talking about when they say it is less energy efficient.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-04-22 15:47:12)

kbd512 · 2024-04-22 21:01:13

Calliban,

I read the article. It's not telling you or I anything we don't already know. Electricity is not some magical way to cheat basic physics.

I noticed that they referenced low and high entropy energy machines. There's a reason I keeping calling photovoltaics, wind turbines, and electrochemical batteries "entropy machines". They require an inordinate entropy change to take highly disordered matter, by using enormous amounts of energy input to transform them into highly ordered matter. However superficially efficient they appear to the indoctrinated vs educated, they're factually the most highly ordered of all our machines, thus the most energy-intensive. Anything that requires inordinate quantities of polysilicon, composites, Lithium, and Copper to function at all, is definitionally energy-intensive. As of right now, almost none of that energy comes from other entropy machines, because entropy machines don't generate enough surplus energy to do that in an economical way. Unless almost all of the energy to make them and power them comes from CO2-free sources, and no matter how else indoctrinated or malevolent people try to obscure basic physics, they are in fact using more input energy to create and operate them. That is why they cost so much. Almost all of the money sunk into them represents money paid for energy to make and operate them, not repairing or recycling them, since that is almost impossible. Worse still, recycling them requires more energy than making a new entropy machine from scratch.

These entropy machines represent an energy treadmill. They're a losing proposition if we zoom out far enough to stop fixating on the end result and start focusing on all the inputs required. If you're going to predominantly use low energy density intermittent energy sources, then you need low embodied energy materials to construct machines that last a very long time, or eventually you run out of energy to sustain your way of life. The implications are that stark and the results won't be pretty.

There's no magic or "wonderment" in this for people who don't have emotional or ideological investment into what the end result looks like. It looks really bad from my perspective, because from an input energy and ecology standpoint, it is bad. While I wish that wasn't the case, I can't flippantly ignore reality and hope that it changes to suit my beliefs about how it should work. Maybe new inventions will come along to fix not-so-green energy's numerous and varied problems, but that's hoping for something that doesn't presently exist. Hoping for change is not a valid engineering strategy for winning this energy and ecology battle.

That's why I spent so much time and effort explaining this so many different ways, whilst repeating things I thought shouldn't require so much repetition, but it looks like it's mostly fallen on deaf ears. I want people to know why this strategy will fail before it finally does fail. It's my hope, though perhaps a vain one at this point, if people who have more than a passing interest in science and technology truly cannot understand it, so that the same mistakes aren't repeated during the next incarnation of whatever follows.

You and I have both spent lots of time pointing out various more practical ways forward for these green energy concepts, that at least have some chance of working to the degree and at the scale required. Perhaps some bright young person, much smarter than I'll ever be, will pick up what we're laying down, use what they know that we don't, and solve these problems in ways we never thought of. That is my only desire. I recognize that we have some significant and serious long-term issue with anthropogenic global warming, maybe more of one than we know, and that the problem requires real solutions that can be implemented in the hear and now, rather than some far off point in the future. We'll only start to appreciate the unique nature and depth of the problem after we recognize the scope and scale of trying to replace hydrocarbon energy with anything else. Our present dependence on it is starting to become a little scary. We need realistic alternatives, but thus far there's no serious effort to pursue them.

Enough people will independently figure this out in their own way, sooner or later. I just hope there's enough time left to pursue actual solutions after we're done mucking around with these non-solutions.

SpaceNut · 2024-04-25 19:51:09

Biden-Harris Administration Announces $7 Billion Solar for All Grants to Deliver Residential Solar, Saving Low-Income Americans $350 Million Annually and Advancing Environmental Justice Across America

NH did get some but the grant that they will receive is for community solar which are the same basic arrays that Eversource has been defeating.

selected grants

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/30/ … %20program.

It's a failure as Eversource deregulation controls the lines so all you get is to choose a portion of the usage of the supplier as the delivery you are unable to control it..

SpaceNut · 2024-06-01 10:50:29

One of nation's largest solar projects nears completion in old coal mining town — here's how it will usher in a new energy era

Xcel Energy's huge solar and energy-storage facility in Becker, Minnesota, is getting closer to completion — and it's set to start pumping out power this fall, Canary Media reported.
Like many exciting energy projects that have recently been finished or are in development, the Sherco facility is being built on the former site of a coal-powered power plant. Coal produces toxic, heat-trapping air pollution when burned, so many states are shutting down their coal plants.

Calliban · 2024-06-05 04:39:04

No more oil by 2040?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r79rxfOFJJY

According to this researcher, north sea oil is already net energy negative, i.e it takes more energy to extract it than it contains. The same problem is playing out at different stages across the globe. If correct, oil and gas product could be heading for a cliff-edge decline, rather than a gradual depletion. This could happen if the economic dislocation resulting from oil depletion prevents investment in areas that are still net energy positive, i.e a cascade effect. A very serious problem, if this man's interpretation is accurate. But he makes the point that available data is too poor in most places to draw firm conclusions.

SpaceNut · 2024-08-18 12:22:55

Clean Fuel Startups Were Supposed to Be the Next Big Thing. Now They Are Collapsing.

kbd512 · 2024-08-18 16:13:09

SpaceNut,

Democrats spent $392B of tax payer money on "Climate Change Action", which meant handing over money to their political campaign donors to pocket. We received the bill, but no new energy. Anyone who says we cannot build a decent energy system with $392B to spend is a bold-faced liar. We didn't even try. Democrats think they can throw money at a problem and a solution will simply materialize, because they're magical thinkers. Nobody who actually knows anything about energy, which necessarily excludes both Democrats and all other magical thinkers, was ever in charge of disbursing funds after a credible business plan was presented to Uncle Sam and a realistic implementation pathway was established.

The majority of these startups were involved in producing Hydrogen using electricity. So-called "green electricity" is incredibly expensive and unreliable. How was that supposed to work? Did anyone even ask that question?

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 10:44:24

For anyone who thinks a "cheap" Chinese EV (a not-so-great copy of a Porsche) is going to "solve" the EV cost problems:

Xiaomi EVs Criticized for Poor Quality, Using Aluminum Instead of Copper, 40% Cancellation Rate

They're all "beautiful trash". They merely "look pretty", but only for the briefest period of time. The seats are cracking within 6 weeks of purchase, the Aluminum wiring is causing fires, and the cars are leaking fluids from multiple different locations during test drives.

Has anyone ever seen a vehicle's entire rear suspension assembly completely separate from a brand new car?

Prior to Chinese EV trash, I know I haven't. I'm pretty sure you don't want that happening to your family while you're driving down the highway at 60mph.

There might be a reason why Chinese EVs are so cheap. They're deliberately made to be disposable trash, so cheaply made that they might not be able to drive off the car lot before they're broken.

To top this off, Xiaomi is losing money on every EV sold, in an attempt to gain market share over their rivals.

Americans complain about the paint peeling off of the Aluminum bodies of Ford and Stellantis trash. Somehow, they cannot figure out how to paint Aluminum. Cessna and Piper owners the world over are baffled, since the aviation industry has successfully painted Aluminum airplanes before WWII started, and some of the original paint has survived for longer than the original owners of those aircraft.

Edit:
For those who think command economies or state-owned enterprises are "the way of the future", Xiaomi is partially state-owned by China. If this is what a command economy is putting out, then I'm not buying it.

Last edited by kbd512 (2024-08-22 10:47:13)

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 22:40:10

Sadly, China's BYD EVs appear to be equally dangerous disposable trash:
Vehicle’s Main Beam Twists as Easily as Tofu! BYD’s Luxury SUVs Are Trash

Chinese EVs sent to overseas buyers are not subjected to Chinese censorship:
Why China Can’t Censor and is Panicking about this EV Disaster

You cannot twist the frame or suspension control arms of an American made SUV using a box wrench. Best of luck twisting the A-pillar or B-pillar without power tools. If you've ever become pissed off at the Ford or GM vehicle you're working on and hit the frame with a 10 pound sledge, then you know what I'm talking about. Some of the poorer tie rod designs on American vehicles can be bent with leverage and enough force. The Chinese are either using "burnt" steel in their vehicle's primary crash structure or steel with improper heat treatment and hardening. With modern manufacturing methods, there's simply no excuse which passes muster for these kinds of failure. Any kind of testing would catch such errors in a heartbeat. In many instances were these EVs have caught fire in China, the manufacturer requests that the Chinese government scrubs the data from the internet. Brand new BYDs are also experiencing total brake failures.

The Chinese have pumped almost $150B Yuan into their EV manufacturers. For the kind of money they're spending, they should be getting a much better result. Something clearly ain't right here.

There's a reason Chinese motor vehicles are so cheap. Their quality control is nonexistent. If this is something you were contemplating putting your family members into, then if you value their lives I'd strongly reconsider until such time as real quality control is enforced at every level of the manufacturing process, from raw material to finished product. If a 150 pound man can bend a control arm or subframe using an 8-inch long box wrench and one arm, then that overweight EV SUV is not suitable for on-road use, never mind off-road use.

Automotive manufacturers across the entire world are just slapping parts together with no regard for quality control or value to their customers. Hyundai and others have air bags deploying from faulty sensors and computer inputs while the vehicle is in motion.

We need to get back to the basics of how to properly design and manufacture vehicles, as well as real quality control, so that people don't die from this utterly pointless cheapening of what was previously thought of as durable goods. Good people will die unless engineers and craftsmen of good moral character tell the suits where to shove their nonsense.

Just to be crystal clear, this is not merely a Chinese problem, nor an American and European problem, it's a basic human problem at this point. It's as if everyone's brain fell out of their head during COVID. We need to start "caring again" about the quality of the products we're putting out into the world.

kbd512 · 2024-08-22 23:32:39

Has anyone here ever bent or broken a one inch diameter piece of rebar using their bare hands?

I've never seen such a thing. I think humanity is in deeper trouble than we know. We've forgotten how to take care of the basics.

Calliban · 2024-08-23 07:27:01

kbd512 wrote:

Has anyone here ever bent or broken a one inch diameter piece of rebar using their bare hands?
I've never seen such a thing. I think humanity is in deeper trouble than we know. We've forgotten how to take care of the basics.

Look at the shape at the end of the chassis break. I would suggest this is a weld quality control issue. If surfaces are contaminated during welding, the weld will be brittle. It is an amateur mistake. I wouldn't trust chinese steel to have good control over contaminants like phosphorus, sulphur or nitrogen, either. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

I ordered a piece of pattern welded steel from a Chinese producer to make a pruning knife for my son. It turned out to be a layer of pattern welded steel fusion welded over a mild steel core. It was cheap, but it turned out to be worth nothing. The same is true of a lot of the crap the comes out of China. If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do it is worth nothing. No matter how cheap the Chinese are able to make a car shaped piece of garbage it is still garbage. It is only better value for money if does the job its supposed to do.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-23 07:27:43)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#376 2024-04-19 18:26:59

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#377 2024-04-19 19:11:03

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#378 2024-04-19 20:06:51

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#379 2024-04-22 09:02:55

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#380 2024-04-22 10:09:02

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#381 2024-04-22 13:47:59

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#382 2024-04-22 15:43:41

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#383 2024-04-22 21:01:13

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#384 2024-04-25 19:51:09

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#385 2024-06-01 10:50:29

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#386 2024-06-05 04:39:04

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#387 2024-08-18 12:22:55

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#388 2024-08-18 16:13:09

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#389 2024-08-22 10:44:24

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#390 2024-08-22 22:40:10

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#391 2024-08-22 23:32:39

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

#392 2024-08-23 07:27:01

Re: Why the Green Energy Transition Won’t Happen

Board footer