The grid isn't built with magic: it doesn't just appear out of thin air. It isn't built with political wishes or platitudes: it has to be sourced with real, physical materials.
It has regularly been claimed that Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are substantially cheaper than the use of convention generation technologies using Fossil fuels and Nuclear technology for power generation.
According to the calculations detailed here, the mandating of Weather-Dependent “Renewables”, Wind and Solar power generation, have the potential to incur very substantial costs on taxpayers in any Nation’s response to the putative Climate emergency and the imposition of radical policies to achieve “Net Zero”.
These calculations show the initial capital cost comparisons and the probable long-term excess costs, when accounting for measured “Renewables”productivity as compared with the use of Gas-firing, (for example from using locally sourced Fracked Gas), for the current UK and European fleets of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” to be roughly summarised as follows:
* in the UK capital costs are ~+130 US$ billion in capital expenditures and ~+350 US$ billion in total long-term costs.
* for the whole EU (27)+UK capital costs are ~+810 US$ billion in capital expenditures and ~+2,070 US$ billion in total long-term costs.
It's also a huge demand on aluminum. Transmission and distribution lines are traditionally aluminum, overhead lines usually have a steel core. Much of framing of the generator will also be aluminum
It strikes me that the question is not if, but when, the Net Zero concept dies, and just how violent its death. My sense is that as I type, the people of Europe, voting for the European Parliament are expressing that opinion right now.
While based on all behavior to date, the Net Zero acolytes will simply double down on their rhetoric, as Doomberg says, in the contest between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated. I expect there will be some major changes over the next several years, with a major shift should Mr Trump be elected in November.
One can hope it does sooner, rather than later. The sooner it does, the less damage is done. However, we can’t underestimate the ego and institutional momentum that sometimes takes years to shift. Hopefully, it happens rapidly but with entire industries, political organizations, and so many academics’ credibilities dependent on Net Zero for survival, it’s doubtful they will go quietly into the sunset.
oh, I agree, it won't be quiet, at least at first. But my read of the zeitgeist all around the world is that ordinary folks are getting tired of the preaching and preening and the 'you need to do this to save the world, but I don't have to because I'm too important, so I will continue to fly in my PJ'
Unfortunately, you are right. This insanity will not go away without a fight. I believe when the real data is compelling enough, people will abandon ship pretty quickly. The laws of physics aren’t going to change to suit the narrative.
Excellent essay, sir(s). A thorough description of the consequences of energy density, without mentioning the term.
Renewables are also land hogs! When that realization sinks in, I think the American public will start asking more and better questions of our policy administrators.
Great article. What an interesting metric. You don’t need twice as many generators, you need 4 or 5 times as many to produce the same number of MWH. Batteries use some copper, too. Each one of these utility scale renewable/battery installations requires a substation or switching station to connect to the grid. This equipment is also under utilized and it requires large amounts of copper.
Currently there are several mineral prospects in various stages of development - in a sort of regulation purgatory - in Alaska. The Pebble Prospect, massive CU and Mo, Donlin- Au, Ambler -Cu, Graphite Creek… there are others but all are essential to the New Green Grift… errrr Deal. And even if they were green-lighted next week, it would be at least a decade for some could begin producing ore.
The key issue is time, $, and permitting. Yes, it takes 10-20 years on average to get a mine up and running. That takes very patient capital since that time frame might be longer than a boom/ bust cycle for copper, meaning you might need someone with deep enough pockets to still back the project through a bear market.
The big question is the rate of growth. It only takes a little bit of increased demand above supply to push prices hikes.
It has regularly been claimed that Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are substantially cheaper than the use of convention generation technologies using Fossil fuels and Nuclear technology for power generation.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/the-myth-of-cheap-uk-wind-power/
According to the calculations detailed here, the mandating of Weather-Dependent “Renewables”, Wind and Solar power generation, have the potential to incur very substantial costs on taxpayers in any Nation’s response to the putative Climate emergency and the imposition of radical policies to achieve “Net Zero”.
These calculations show the initial capital cost comparisons and the probable long-term excess costs, when accounting for measured “Renewables”productivity as compared with the use of Gas-firing, (for example from using locally sourced Fracked Gas), for the current UK and European fleets of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” to be roughly summarised as follows:
* in the UK capital costs are ~+130 US$ billion in capital expenditures and ~+350 US$ billion in total long-term costs.
* for the whole EU (27)+UK capital costs are ~+810 US$ billion in capital expenditures and ~+2,070 US$ billion in total long-term costs.
It's also a huge demand on aluminum. Transmission and distribution lines are traditionally aluminum, overhead lines usually have a steel core. Much of framing of the generator will also be aluminum
Yes. 100%. And rare earths too
The proliferation of DC motors in recent years makes this even more dramatic. And China has an even bigger monopoly on magnets.
China really does dominate or have a large chunk of pretty much every piece of the green tech / energy materials supply chain
It strikes me that the question is not if, but when, the Net Zero concept dies, and just how violent its death. My sense is that as I type, the people of Europe, voting for the European Parliament are expressing that opinion right now.
While based on all behavior to date, the Net Zero acolytes will simply double down on their rhetoric, as Doomberg says, in the contest between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated. I expect there will be some major changes over the next several years, with a major shift should Mr Trump be elected in November.
One can hope it does sooner, rather than later. The sooner it does, the less damage is done. However, we can’t underestimate the ego and institutional momentum that sometimes takes years to shift. Hopefully, it happens rapidly but with entire industries, political organizations, and so many academics’ credibilities dependent on Net Zero for survival, it’s doubtful they will go quietly into the sunset.
oh, I agree, it won't be quiet, at least at first. But my read of the zeitgeist all around the world is that ordinary folks are getting tired of the preaching and preening and the 'you need to do this to save the world, but I don't have to because I'm too important, so I will continue to fly in my PJ'
I think you’re correct. As it continues to hit the voters pocket book, they’ll get really sick of the greens ‘ rules for thee and not me’
Unfortunately, you are right. This insanity will not go away without a fight. I believe when the real data is compelling enough, people will abandon ship pretty quickly. The laws of physics aren’t going to change to suit the narrative.
“Peter Pan’s Neverland Grid” Love it!
Excellent essay, sir(s). A thorough description of the consequences of energy density, without mentioning the term.
Renewables are also land hogs! When that realization sinks in, I think the American public will start asking more and better questions of our policy administrators.
Thank you! Yes, that’s is the hope that people wake up to reality soon!
Great article. What an interesting metric. You don’t need twice as many generators, you need 4 or 5 times as many to produce the same number of MWH. Batteries use some copper, too. Each one of these utility scale renewable/battery installations requires a substation or switching station to connect to the grid. This equipment is also under utilized and it requires large amounts of copper.
Exactly. Batteries are copper hogs as well
Currently there are several mineral prospects in various stages of development - in a sort of regulation purgatory - in Alaska. The Pebble Prospect, massive CU and Mo, Donlin- Au, Ambler -Cu, Graphite Creek… there are others but all are essential to the New Green Grift… errrr Deal. And even if they were green-lighted next week, it would be at least a decade for some could begin producing ore.
The key issue is time, $, and permitting. Yes, it takes 10-20 years on average to get a mine up and running. That takes very patient capital since that time frame might be longer than a boom/ bust cycle for copper, meaning you might need someone with deep enough pockets to still back the project through a bear market.
The big question is the rate of growth. It only takes a little bit of increased demand above supply to push prices hikes.