Aha! “Renewable Energy” Is Only (Kind Of) Renewable ELECTRICITY

Posted: July 24, 2020 by oldbrew in Critique, Energy
Tags: ,

.
.
Petroleum-based products cannot be ‘electrified’.

PA Pundits - International

By Ronald Stein ~

The rage these days from the Green New Deal, the Paris Accord, and the recent Democrats Clean Energy Climate Policy are all focused on renewable energy to replace our demands from fossil fuels. But wait – renewable energy from wind and solar is only renewable ELECTRICITY! At best, that renewable electricity is intermittent as it depends on wind and sunshine to produce any electricity.

Before 1900 the world had no medications, electronics, cosmetics, plastics, fertilizers, and transportation infrastructures. Looking back just a few short centuries, we’ve come a long way since the pioneer days.

Also, before 1900, the world had very little commerce and without transportation there is no commerce. The two prime movers that have done more for the cause of globalization than any other: the diesel engine and the jet turbine, both get their fuels from oil. Road and air travel now dominate most…

View original post 878 more words

Comments
  1. SasjaL says:

    Energy can not be renewed. Energy is and can not be created or consumed. Only tranformed. Anywhere we look, we find energy in different forms.

  2. tom0mason says:

    ‘Renewable energy’ is a myth (on par with perpetual motion).
    To make solar, or wind electrical energy takes much energy in a concentrated form, to manufacturing these wind and solar devices. And as such the electrical energy derived from these devices is unreliable, and in low concentrations, such that it can not be used for proper maintenance, renewal, or manufacture of these devices from their basic elements. On top of that these devices require vast acreages of land to produce their unreliable output. Land that was either countryside or could have been put to better use.

    The missing question is why is everyone being driven to these dead-end ‘solutions’ when there is no problem with atmospheric CO2 levels. As far as I see it, it is all about crony politics mixed with very shoddy science, and underdeveloped technology.

  3. JB says:

    50 years ago I ran into a fellow who was adamant that electricity could be “saved.” No matter what tack I took to explain the concept of energy conversion he refused to relinquish the idea by understanding the process.

    Little did I realize then just how pervasive this mentality is in the world. If it doesn’t fit within their paradigm, it doesn’t exist.

  4. dscott says:

    Jeff Bezos of Amazon disagrees:

    “The alternative to going to space, according to Bezos, is bleak. Citing compounding energy use, he says a future locked on earth would be one of “population control and energy rationing,” and that’s not the future he wants for his grandchildren’s grandchildren.”

    https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/03/jeff-bezos-wants-a-trillion-people-to-live-in-space/

    In another article Bezos acknowledged that one would have to cover the earth in solar panels in a hundred years just to keep up, which is why he believes space colonization is the only realistic answer to the long term viability of civilization.

    But Bezos did let the cat out of the bag regarding the oonsequences of renewable energy. Liberals are not happy with him about that…

  5. oldbrew says:

    Bezos acknowledged that one would have to cover the earth in solar panels in a hundred years just to keep up, which is why he believes space colonization is the only realistic answer

    You first then, Jeff. Leave some money behind to help pay for the other billion space rockets – or is it just for selected citizens?

  6. dscott says:

    Wind and Solar Ramp-up Problematic (mainstream recognition of grassroots environmentalism)

    ” The Michael Moore documentary Planet of the Humans has educated millions about the dark, dirty side of so-called green energy. Producer Jeff Gibbs makes these points about wind power, solar power, and biomass in particular (verbatim):

    … there is no “green,” “sustainable” version of growth.
    There is no technology that does not come from a profound cost to our Mother Earth.
    The mining, smelting, manufacturing, mountain dissolving, forest clearing, pit digging, air polluting, water poisoning, human exploiting, and fossil fuel burning necessary to bring us our “green” energy are no small matter.
    No “breakthroughs” in green technology will eliminate their significant and growing impact on the living planet.
    Fairy tales of green technology saving the planet protect us from the full weight of just how bad things are and from making a real plan to save ourselves and a planet worth living on.
    Biomass and biofuel remain the largest portion of what’s defined as green energy around the world.
    Millions of square miles of technology plastered across the planet is the wrong kind of “magic.” ”

    https://www.masterresource.org/not-green-book-reviews/the-guardian-wind-and-solar-ramp-up-problematic-mainstream-recognition-of-the-enviro-grassroots/

    Even Michael Moore recognizes the fraud.

  7. dscott says:

    Heartless: Renewable Energy Advocates Hate the Poor & Want to Keep Them That Way

    ” In California, compassion is a rare commodity among those promoting and profiting from subsidised wind and solar. Seminal Californian Punk outfit, the Dead Kennedys seem to have foreshadowed their State’s insane energy policy with their cheery ditty, ‘Kill the Poor’. Because it’s the poor and vulnerable that suffer most from rocketing power prices.

    As in South Australia, Ontario, Denmark and Germany, so it goes in California….

    …A prominent new study from UCLA researchers about California’s energy policies is fascinating not so much for its Captain Obvious conclusions, but because it points to a growing rift on in the environmental world between those who favor the state’s far-reaching “green” policies — and those who want to hector us to use less energy.

    “Wealth is a prominent driver of demand for residential energy,” the authors wrote. “Worldwide, wealthier groups lead more materially and energetically intensive lives than the less affluent, consuming in excess of what they require to meet their essential needs.” That’s stunning for its inanity. Is anyone shocked that those with higher incomes live in bigger houses, and spend more to cool them, than those with lower incomes?

    “This level of consumption is clearly beyond what you need to provide for your survival, to allow you to be a functioning member of society,” the study’s lead author, Eric Fournier, told the Los Angeles Times. He and his fellow authors thought long and hard about their descriptions of “excessive” and even “profligate” energy consumption. Apparently, academics should decide how much electricity everyone else should use. ”

    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/07/30/heartless-renewable-energy-advocates-hate-the-poor-want-to-keep-them-that-way/

    It is what its always been about, the few living on the backs of the masses. This is how they justify it.

  8. oldbrew says:

    WRITTEN BY MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER ON JUL 29, 2020.

    Dems Smear Enviro At House Hearing For Exposing Green Energy Costs

    Today, shortly after giving expert testimony to Congress about energy policy, I had the startling experience of being smeared by sitting members of the United States House of Representatives.

    The context was a special House Committee hearing to evaluate a Democratic proposal similar to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which would spend $2 trillion over four years on renewables and other climate programs.
    . . .
    If the US keeps closing nuclear plants and fails to build new ones, we will cede our ability to compete with the Russians and Chinese in building new nuclear plants abroad, which will undermine national security and good industrial jobs at home.

    The threat posed by America’s illiberal, nuclear-building rivals will, like the crisis facing renewables, continue to grow, regardless of whether Democrats succeed in shutting me up.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/dems-smear-enviro-at-house-hearing-for-exposing-green-energy-costs/
    – – –
    Small Modular Reactors – the US has shown some interest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s