Should the Phoenix Arise; the Bateman Equation and Wind Energy.

[NNadir]

I'm very depressed; I'm sure I will not live long enough to see a Phoenix rise from this political, unprecedented disaster in which my people showed themselves unworthy of decency. I am extremely disgusted by the American People as a whole, and worry as to whether this is 1933 in Berlin all over again.

All day I've been trying to think about something else, so here it is:

I would have thought, with all the trillions thrown at it, the wind industry would have added at least one Exajoule of Energy but according to the EIA's World Energy Outlook, it remained constant from 2022 to 2023. It has always been a trivial, if expensive, form of reactionary energy despite the myth that it's "cheap," a lie advanced by ignoring the required internal and external costs of redundancy, a dishonest practice if ever there was one. It produced 8 Exajoules in 2022; and 8 Exajoules again in 2023.

To wit:



World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296. (Primary Energy Excerpt)

At least in round numbers, the wind energy output grew, in "percent talk," zero percent.

Of course people are tearing the shit out of wilderness to make wind industrial parks, and now are trashing the continental shelf to do the same, so it kind of surprised me. One possibility is that the inability of so called "renewable energy" to do anything at all to address extreme global warming, has changed the weather so as to diminish the winds, but I'm not sure I'd believe that. Another is an increasing wake effect, known to diminish winds in wind industrial parks, so that each turbine produces even less energy than an isolated turbine might.

However, I wondered to myself, while trying to think of something other than an ignorant pig heading to the White House to destroy this country, whether another effect is taking place, secular equilibrium.

I have repeatedly noted, using data from the Danish Energy Agency's Master Register of Wind Turbines, which is no longer maintained there, probably because it makes the industry look like shit (which it is), that wind turbines have a short life time, under 18 years on average.

The Growth Rate of the Danish Wind Industry As Compared to the New Finnish EPR Nuclear Reactor.

With the trillions of dollars spent on wind energy has left lots of them littering the planet. The more there are, the more that will be available to fail.

In nuclear engineering, an important equation to understand is the Bateman Equation:



It can be shown that the solutions of this equation involve exponential terms, particularly in the case involving simplification to give the radioactive decay law, which is buried in the Bateman equation above.



In the Bateman Equation shown the first term after the summation refers to the fission yield of a particular nuclide N_i, it creates a nuclide, and thus works to increase its concentration. It's linear. However the decay term is exponential; the more of a nuclide there is, the more of it will decay. The result is, that given any power level for nuclear reactors, there will be a point at which the radioactive fission products will be decaying at the rate formed. (This is actually asymptotic, but for practical purposes achieved on a macroscopic scale.) Where this equilibrium lies, is a function of the half-life; the shorter the half-life for any nuclide, the less will be available for use. Short-lived nuclides reach secular equilibrium while still in the reactor, longer lived nuclides can survive long enough to be isolated for use.

And this is, I think, on reflection, why the growth of the wind industry has stopped; secular equilibrium is being achieved. We can no longer afford to build them as fast as they fail, because as so many of them now litter the planet, the numbers of those failing is nearly equal to the capacity to build new ones.

It seems reasonable, but there are other factors for sure, but it's an interesting way to look at it, and probably of some relevance.

It's possible one may not like this observation, which, so far as the growth of wind energy output, zero percent from 2022 to 2023, is nonetheless real. If however, one is in the class of not liking this real data, as I'm raw, and hurting for my country, I would appreciate it if you don't post videos put out by the so called "renewable energy"/battery/hydrogen cults. I've had enough of cults for now.

[gay texan]

1. There is one good thing about wind energy and

The turbines they put around my house.

It keeps the lightning away from my ham radio antennas as they are much taller.

Purely selfish, but.....

[NNadir]

4. Eric Idle on the cross.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Energy.gov U.S. Department of Energy Projects Strong Growth in U.S. Wind Power Sector

https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-projects-strong-growth-us-wind-power-sector

Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy Projects Strong Growth in U.S. Wind Power Sector

AUGUST 24, 2023
Energy.gov U.S. Department of Energy Projects Strong Growth in U.S. Wind Power Sector
Three New Wind Energy Market Reports Highlight Growth in Wind Energy Deployment and Domestic Supply Chain, Creating Good-Paying Jobs Thanks to President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released three annual reports showing that wind power continues to be one of the fastest growing and lowest cost sources of electricity in America and is poised for rapid growth. According to the new reports, wind power accounted for 22% of new electricity capacity installed in the United States in 2022, second only to solar, representing $12 billion in capital investment, and employing more than 125,000 Americans. The reports found that transformative tax incentives in President Biden’s Investing in America agenda—a key pillar of Bidenomics—have led to significant increases in near-term wind deployment forecasts and are helping keep wind power prices competitive with other sources of energy like natural gas. Since taking office, President Biden has launched the most ambitious climate agenda in history, and wind energy both onshore and offshore will continue to play a significant role in achieving the Biden-Harris Administration’s unprecedented clean energy goals.

“As one of the cheapest energy sources nationwide, wind energy generates enough electricity to power more than 43 million homes and is creating good-paying jobs for the growing domestic wind energy workforce,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is expanding our nation’s domestic supply chain, increasing energy security, and growing the wind energy market to drive our clean energy future.”

Since the passage of President Biden’s historic Inflation Reduction Act, forecasts for land-based wind energy installed in 2026 have increased nearly 60% from about 11,500 megawatts (MW) to 18,000 MW, which is enough to power an additional two million homes. There have also been at least eleven announcements of manufacturing facilities that plan to open, re-open, or expand to serve the land-based wind industry. And the advanced manufacturing production tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to reduce the cost of offshore wind blades by 27% and steel towers by 18%.

The 2023 edition of the Land-Based Wind Market Report, prepared by DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, details the 8,511 MW of new utility-scale land-based wind generation capacity added in 2022—the equivalent of powering 2.5 million American homes. Key findings from the report include:

• Wind energy provided 10% of total electricity nationwide, more than 60% of power in Iowa, and over 40% of power in South Dakota, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
• 14 states installed new utility-scale land-based wind turbines in 2022. Texas installed the most capacity, with 4,028 MW. Other leading states included Oklahoma and Nebraska, which each adding more than 600 MW of capacity in 2022.
• For the first time, non-utility buyers, such as corporations, are purchasing more wind than utilities. Direct retail purchasers of wind—including corporate commitments—buy electricity from at least 44% of the new wind capacity installed in 2022.
• Wind turbines continue to grow in size and power, contributing to competitive costs and prices. The average capacity of newly installed wind turbines grew 7% from 2021 to 2022, to 3.2 MW, while the hub height—distance from the ground to the middle of the turbine’s rotor—increased 4% from 2021 to 2022, to 98.1 meters, slightly taller than the Statue of Liberty. Taller wind turbines can create more electricity by benefitting from the better wind resources available further from the ground.
• For wind projects built in 2022, the estimated public health benefits, climate benefits, and value to the grid are worth more than five times the cost of generating electricity from wind energy.

…

[NNadir]

5. I've been on DU for almost 22 years. If printed, I could fill a large box with all the soothsaying I've heard...

...about magical solar and wind, which was, especially in the early days, not at all about addressing environmental issues, and preventing the climate disaster now underway, but instead involved with attacking nuclear energy.

In the 22 years I've been here, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide has risen, as of last week, 49.49 ppm, with "wind and solar will save us" soothsaying being announced continuously here. (I joined in the third week of November, 2002; the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide was 375.96, as measured at the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory.)

Here's what the most recent reading is:

Week beginning on October 27, 2024: 423.15 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 397.57 ppm
Last updated: November 07, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Are congratulations for all the soothsaying over the last 2 decades in order or should we instead face reality?

I vote, as always, for reality, although it seems like I'm losing the election.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Non sequitur

Increasing levels of atmospheric CO₂ while tragic, in no way invalidate renewable energy, any more than they invalidate fission.

They invalidate our political systems.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. 22 Years ago, you were a true believer in Nuclear Power

You made up your mind, and refused to be confused by any new facts.

https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-and-secure-energy-transitions/executive-summary

Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions
Executive summary
A new dawn for nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy can help make the energy sector's journey away from unabated fossil fuels faster and more secure. Amid today’s global energy crisis, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels has become the top energy security priority. No less important is the climate crisis: reaching net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by mid-century requires a rapid and complete decarbonisation of electricity generation and heat production. Nuclear energy, with its 413 gigawatts (GW) of capacity operating in 32 countries, contributes to both goals by avoiding 1.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of global emissions and 180 billion cubic metres (bcm) of global gas demand a year. While wind and solar PV are expected to lead the push to replace fossil fuels, they need to be complemented by dispatchable resources. As today’s second largest source of low emissions power after hydropower, and with its dispatchability and growth potential, nuclear – in countries where it is accepted – can help ensure secure, diverse low emissions electricity systems.

Advanced economies have lost market leadership. Although advanced economies have nearly 70% of global nuclear capacity, investment has stalled and the latest projects have run far over budget and behind schedule. As a result, the project pipelines and preferred designs have shifted. Of the 31 reactors that began construction since the beginning of 2017, all but 4 are of Russian or Chinese design.

…

Restrictions on nuclear power remain in certain countries, driven by concerns about safety and waste. The 2011 accident at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant in Japan following a major earthquake undermined public trust in nuclear power, underscoring the need for robust, independent regulatory oversight. Accident risks are one of the main factors behind bans on nuclear power or policies to phase it out. While there is progress on disposing of high-level nuclear waste, with three countries having approved sites, gaining public and political acceptance has been challenging.

The policy landscape is changing, opening up opportunities for a nuclear comeback. More than 70 countries, covering three-quarters of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged to cut their emissions to net zero. While renewables would provide the largest share of low emissions electricity and many countries either do not foresee the need or do not want a role for nuclear power, a growing number of countries have also announced plans to invest in nuclear. The United Kingdom, France, China, Poland and India have recently announced energy strategies that include substantial roles for nuclear power. The United States is investing in advanced reactor designs.

…

The reality is that we need to deploy clean energy sources ASAP, and nuclear fission simply takes too long, and costs too much. I do not advocate shutting down existing reactors, so long as they are well maintained and well sited (that would be foolhardy.) In the long run, we will need some sort of “baseload” power. "4th Generation" Nuclear is at an apparent standstill. I think nuclear fusion is likely to eclipse it.

https://newatlas.com/energy/first-officially-approved-us-gen-iv-nuclear-reactor/

First officially approved Gen IV nuclear reactor in the US breaks ground
By David Szondy
July 31, 2024

Kairos Power has broken ground at Oak Ridge on the first officially approved Generation IV reactor ever in the US and the first non-light-water reactor in 50 years. It is being constructed alongside a non-nuclear demonstration unit that will help inform the design of the new reactor facility.

Despite being one of the pioneering nations in the field of civilian nuclear power, the United States has fallen far behind even what were once non-players like China and India. There are a number of reasons for this, some political and some economic, but the drive to cut carbon emissions while sustaining a modern industrial society is causing nuclear reactors to make a comeback in more advanced forms.

On July 17, 2024, Kairos Power began construction at Oak Ridge, Tennessee on its Hernes low-power demonstration reactor. It won't be generating electricity for the grid. Instead, its function will be to develop Kairos's molten fluoride salt-cooled pebble-bed reactor, which is an inherently safe design that is capable of shutting itself down and keeping the reactor core safely cool in the event of an accident.

Kairos

In addition, the company is building a second plant at Oak Ridge, called ETU 3.0, that is essentially a non-nuclear version of Hermes. This test bed will allow engineers to study the machinery in operation without worrying about radiation and let them find ways to make the construction and operation of such a nuclear station more economical. This is extremely important because the major cost of nuclear power isn't the reactor but the civil engineering needed to house and service it.

…

Just because the present day is not the future you imagined 22 years ago, doesn’t mean it isn’t reality.

[NNadir]

8. Thank you for claiming that you know better than I do what I was thinking 22 years ago.

I recall it very differently. I was merely decrying the triumph of antinuke ignorance, which was clearly winning, at a huge loss to all humanity.

I have never underestimated the power of ignorance.

I really, really, really, really don't need to be told about Kairos or any other new nuclear design; I have a son on the front lines of nuclear design and engineering, combatting ignorance.

Neither he nor I live by Googling to nonsensical misapprehension of nuclear technology. We rely on the primary scientific literature.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. For 22 years, you've discounted anything and everything which was not nuclear fission.

The facts have changed. Your mind has not.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-system-cost-benchmarks

[NNadir]

10. It's amusing to hear that there are people...

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2024, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

...who claim they can tell another person how their mind works, what they believe, who they are, etc. One of course can claim that one is a clairvoyant, or a God perhaps.

I'm personally not prone to credit mysticism however; I'm a scientist.

I find claims of clairvoyance simply to be evidence that the claimant feels justified in pontificating on subjects about which they know nothing at all.

Clearly it carries well beyond discussions of personality into technical realms, say about energy. I almost never encounter an antinuke who knows a damn thing about the subject.

Much of my journal on the website is my commentary on papers in the primary scientific literature; I may have referenced, excerpted, and linked thousands of such papers here. One does not read extensively if one has a closed mind. However if one works very, very hard, is highly trained and equipped to think critically, one can and should draw conclusions from scientific consensus, until there is good reason to withdraw it or modify it. Pretty much every damn day I am reading journals published in the same week I'm reading it.

On the other hand if one wishes to lazily assert using silly graphics about the cost of energy without factoring in the normal parameters defining it's external costs as delineated in things related to reliability, the health and damage costs, material intensity, land area intensity, one is not working with any depth; one is merely regurgitating nonsense consistent with what one wants to hear. I define such an approach as dogmatic.

My interest is not about nuclear energy per se; the goal of my detailed hard work is actually about bringing an end to fossil fuels, which, by the numbers, it has failed to do. The question as to why nuclear energy has failed to prevent the extreme global heating with which we now live may not be technical, it may be social.

It's pretty clear that it is the latter that has prevailed, a social constraint driven by fear and ignorance, ignorance being driven by people pontificating on subjects on which they know nothing at all.

We hear endless soothsaying about so called "renewable energy" decade after decade, but none of it addressed extreme global heating since extreme global heating is observed and is in fact accelerating. It's not like vast resources have been not extended to the effort. Vast stretches of wilderness have been industrialized for it, vast materials consumed and trillions of dollars expended.

A classic loud mouthed know nothing is the President elect, but the existence of this type is hardly unknown among people who purport to comment on energy matters here.

For the record until around 1989 or so I was as dumb and poorly informed as any antinuke who writes here. Then Chernobyl blew up in 1986 and I began looking into the actual consequences as opposed to my expectations derived from being just another credulous intellectually fossilized antinuke. I was stimulated to do this when in 1986 I opened one of the reference books we used in those days before the internet, The Handbook of Chemistry to find the half lives of the released radionuclides, and came across a parameter of which I'd never heard, the neutron capture cross section. It stimulated some curiosity that led me on a path of deep investigation. That little column in that long table changed my life, causing me to look into the fascinating chemistry of nuclear fuels, and ultimately nuclear reactor engineering and design.

I wasn't hostile to so called "renewable energy" until well into my tenure at Kos and DU when I began to receive exposure to some of the clearly absurd representations about, then and now, so called "renewable energy" heavily loaded with soothsaying not supported by observed results. I'd date that change of heart on this score to somewhere in the period between 2005 and 2010. Eventually I recognized that trillions of dollars were being squandered for meager or no results, so I changed my mind and concluded that solar and wind were not merely useless but are instead pernicious, inasmuch as they generate far more complacency than energy, destroy precious wilderness rely on unacceptable large material requirements.

I am accused of being intellectually ossified, which I find amusing, especially given the source. To me the "renewables will save us" types are a set of people for whom no amount of data can change their minds: no amont of data can result in them rethinking their beliefs. In short, they demonstrate the features of a cult.

Nevertheless the data is in, if one looks.
So called "renewable energy" has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail at the only thing that matters to me, ameliorating if not reversing the extreme global heating we now are experiencing.

Thank you for your comments and giving me the opportunity to express my distain for cult thinking.

Have a nice weekend.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. "Cult Thinking"

“Cult Thinking” is unreasonable. Your support for nuclear fission is not unreasonable. Your denial of “renewable energy” out of your supposed concern for the climate is completely unreasonable.

We need clean energy ASAP, and, we are rolling out clean energy solutions today. For the most part, they are not nuclear.
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-study.html

Why not? Partly because of projects like these:

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-announces-Hinkley-Point-C-delay-and-big-rise-i

EDF announces Hinkley Point C delay and rise in project cost
Tuesday, 23 January 2024
The UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, which was expected to be completed in 2027 and cost up to GBP26 billion, is now unlikely to be operational before 2030, with the overall cost revised to between GBP31 to GBP34 billion (in 2015 prices), EDF has said.

…

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-edf-investigates-second-automatic-shutdown-flamanville-3-reactor-2024-09-17/

France's EDF investigates second automatic shutdown at Flamanville 3 reactor
By Alban Kacher and Benjamin Mallet
September 17, 20249:08 AM EDT

…

After 12 years of delays and setbacks, EDF started divergence operations - the first nuclear fission that allows electricity production to begin - on the Flamanville 3 nuclear plant about two weeks ago.

The reactor stopped automatically on Sept. 4, only a day after it entered production, due to human error during post-divergence tests.

…

https://nawindpower.com/baltic-eagle-project-will-start-operations-ahead-of-schedule

Baltic Eagle Project Will Start Continuous Operations Ahead of Schedule
By Valerie Swiantek July 15, 2024

In the Baltic Sea, off the island of Rügen, 50Hertz has completed the last of three cable systems for the Ostwind 2 offshore grid connection project after a four-week trial run, meaning that it will start continuous operation almost three months ahead of schedule.

…

https://solar1.org/blog/2024/10/23/new-york-state-reaches-solar-power-milestone-ahead-of-schedule-6-gw-installed/

New York State Reaches Solar Power Milestone Ahead of Schedule: 6 GW Installed
PUBLISHED: 10/23/24

New York, with its vast acreage of rooftops and millions of renters, is the top community solar market in the country. On Thursday, Governor Hochul and NYSERDA President and CEO Doreen Harris announce that the state has reached an important milestone of 6 gigawatts of installed solar and a year ahead of schedule at that. Consequently, New York is increasing its solar power goal to 10 GW by 2030.

…

[NNadir]

12. There are no number times that idiotic videos purportedly about myths can be posted that can make 8 + 8 equal 30.

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2024, 06:37 AM - Edit history (3)

World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A1a: World energy supply Page 296. (Truncated to show primary energy only, and excluding the part where hydrogen consumes more energy than it provides.)

It's funny to hear antinukes complain that it takes too long to build nuclear plants, when their asinine solar and wind trillion dollar crap, in an atmosphere of mindless cheering, has never, not once, produced as much energy as nuclear energy does reliably in an atmosphere of mindless vituperation, and has been doing consistently for decades, not needing to fire up gas and coal plants every fucking day when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing.

Apparently for antinukes 8 + 8 is greater than 30. One sees these things and one doesn't really want to believe it.

And then, they want to call out "myths." It's Orwellian, if not obscene.

It is not merely a myth, it's a fucking illiterate lie actually, to insist that the unit of energy is the Watt, particularly for systems that are unreliable in the extreme, as opposed to the Joule. Of course, one can only sell the bullshit about what is growing fast, if one claims that solar cells and wind cells operate at full power 24/7, 365 days a year, as many nuclear plants around the world have done, particularly in the United States.

And of course, we note that the trillion dollar solar industry between 2022 and 2023 grew by 2 Exajoules, from 6 Exajoules to 8 Exajoules, slower than coal, which grew by 3 Exajoules, from 172 Exajoules to 175 Exajoules.
Just as it is a mathematical truism that 8 + 8 is not equal to 30; it is also true that 175-172 = 3 is greater than 8-6 = 2. In percent talk in the period between 2022 and 2023, the use of coal grew 150% faster than the solar junk, all of which will be landfill in 25 years or less, not that antinukes give a flying fuck about coal.

Thank you German antinukes. Way to go!!!

But here are the important numbers, the numbers about which clearly solar and wind cults couldn't care less:

Week beginning on October 27, 2024: 423.15 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 397.57 ppm
Last updated: November 08, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Excuse me if I'm uninterested in delusional propaganda videos that only serve the coal, gas, and oil industries which aren't going anywhere because this reactionary solar and wind shit hasn't done a damned fucking thing to address fossil fuel consumption. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

And let's be clear, it is reactionary: Humanity abandoned dependence on the weather for energy in the 19th century for a reason, the chief one being something antinukes can't understand, reliability. People don't disconnect their refrigerators, surgical suites don't turn off the lights during periods of Dunkelflaute that can last for months at a time. They (I'm looking at you, Germany) burn coal and gas to keep the lights on.

As for me, I have serious things to do other than to watch tripe videos. I really, really, really don't take recommendations from people who wish to represent that 8 + 8 is larger than 30. I'd be embarrassed to do so.

The fucking planet is burning and as it does, around the world, the lie has become more valuable than the ability to recognize very, very, very simple truths, for example that 8 + 8 does not equal or exceed 30.

Have a pleasant weekend.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. IEA: World Energy Outlook 2024 - Pathways for the energy mix

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024/pathways-for-the-energy-mix

Pathways for the energy mix
Peaks coming into view?

• …
• Low-emissions sources, led by renewables, increase faster than electricity demand in all scenarios, thereby pushing down the share of fossil fuels in electricity generation. In 2023, renewables provided 30% of global electricity supply, while fossil fuels edged down to 60%, their lowest share in 50 years. By 2035, the share of solar PV and wind in electricity generation exceeds 40% globally in the STEPS, and by 2050 increases to nearly 60%. The share of nuclear power remains close to 10% in all scenarios.
• Fossil fuels met 80% of global energy demand in 2023. As in the WEO-2023, our scenarios indicate that demand for oil, natural gas and coal is set to peak by 2030, though oil use for aviation and petrochemicals increases to 2050 in the STEPS, natural gas demand remains robust in emerging market and developing economies, and the decline in coal use is relatively gradual. Higher clean energy investment and a faster descent from these peaks is needed to fulfil announced pledges and move the world towards a net zero emissions pathway.
• Seven clean energy technologies – solar PV, wind, nuclear, electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen and carbon capture – are key to affordable and secure transitions. Together they account for three-quarters of the CO2 emissions reductions to 2050 in the APS and the NZE Scenario, complemented by other renewables such as bioenergy and geothermal, and energy efficiency. Overcoming barriers to their deployment, including network and storage infrastructure, should be a priority worldwide.

[NNadir]

17. One can look at Table A.1.a on page 296 of the 2024 WEO to see how electricity is generated on this planet.

Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2024, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I have previously truncated my reproduction the table - to accommodate the limits of my graphics software - to delineate how primary energy is generated on this planet, but did not include the part involved in thermodynamically degraded electricity.

Let me work with the graphics to show the full table, which includes information about energy losses for the big "renewables will save us" efforts to push the destruction of rain forests for palm oil now running here, as well as the soothsaying predicted energy losses to make the fossil fuel generated hydrogen to pretend it's made from so called "renewable energy."




There now, it now includes the part of the table where one can discern that 8EJ + 8EJ (solar + wind) still doesn't equal 30 EJ (nuclear) even after trillions of dollars squandered to trash wilderness for so called "renewable energy."

Let's see, what it says about primary energy sources for producing thermodynamically degraded electricity, using real numbers as opposed to "percent talk."

8+8 still doesn't equal 30, nor does 8+8 equal the 115 EJ of coal energy to generate electricity, nor does 8+8 equal the 57 EJ of natural gas used to generate electricity. 8+8 does, however, slightly exceed the 15 EJ generated by renewable hydroelectricity, but with all the droughts underway because so called "renewable energy" did nothing at all to slow extreme global heating, and because we're fresh out of major rivers to destroy, there seems to be a limit on what hydroelectricity will produce. The 10 EJ of electricity produced by burning biofuels is offset by the 6 EJ of energy losses associated with producing biofuels.

As for IEA soothsaying about "by 2030," I note that I have every fucking volume of the WEO put out in the 21st century. The data is worthy of consideration, soothsaying not so much. I'm an old man. I've lived through "by 1990," "by 2000," "by 2010," and most recently "by 2020" soothsaying about the outbreak of the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana.

Is it here yet?

Well, that depends entirely on one's sense of reality.

Something called "reality:"

Week beginning on November 03, 2024: 423.28 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.38 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.91 ppm
Last updated: November 09, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

By the way, my State, New Jersey, is breaking into flames now, along with places all over the world. I'm sure our faith based "renewables will save us" crowd is very, very, very pleased with themselves.

Maybe it's fear of reality that's driving the worldwide outbreak of fascism, since "renewables will save us" fantasies didn't cut it, did they?

Have a nice evening.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. IEA: Solar and wind to lead growth of U.S. power generation for the next two years

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61242

JANUARY 16, 2024
Solar and wind to lead growth of U.S. power generation for the next two years


Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), January 2024

In our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast that wind and solar energy will lead growth in U.S. power generation for the next two years. As a result of new solar projects coming on line this year, we forecast that U.S. solar power generation will grow 75% from 163 billion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2023 to 286 billion kWh in 2025. We expect that wind power generation will grow 11% from 430 billion kWh in 2023 to 476 billion kWh in 2025.

In 2023, the U.S. electric power sector produced 4,017 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electric power. Renewable sources—wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal—accounted for 22% of generation, or 874 billion kWh, last year. Annual renewable power generation surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in 2021 and coal generation for the first time in 2022.

In contrast to growing generation from renewables, we forecast that coal power generation will decline 18% from 665 billion kWh in 2023 to 548 billion kWh in 2025. We forecast natural gas will continue to be the largest source of U.S. electricity generation, with about 1,700 billion kWh of annual generation in 2024 and 2025, similar to last year. We expect nuclear power generation will stay relatively flat, rising from 776 billion kWh in 2023 to 797 billion kWh in 2025.



Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), January 2024

New installations of generating capacity support the increase in our renewable generation forecast. Wind and solar developers often bring their projects on line at the end of the calendar year. So, the new capacity tends to affect generation growth trends for the following year. Solar is the fastest-growing renewable source because of the larger capacity additions and favorable tax credits policies. Planned solar projects increase solar capacity operated by the electric power sector 38% from 95 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2023 to 131 GW by the end of 2024. We expect wind capacity to stay relatively flat at 156 GW by the end of 2024, compared with 149 GW in December 2023.

If your thinking does not agree with reality, it’s time to adjust your thinking.

[NNadir]

26. Oh wow. More soothsaying. The unit of energy, as people should learn in high school, is the Joule, not the Watt.

And of course, it's worth noting that as usual, our antinukes responsible for the extreme global heating now before us, have no interest in whether their expensive and useless toys produce more energy than fossil fuels, since they obviously they couldn't care less about fossil fuels.

It's always "more than nuclear," because the reality is that antinukes, who have agitated against nuclear energy for decades while not giving a fuck about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere from fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, are quite literally, now that the planet is burning, arsonists complaining about forest fires.

The whole fucking planet is on fire, and still we hear this shit, day in and day out, all night long (while the solar shit is doing nothing). It never stops while the planet burns. It's Nero playing his fiddle loudly all over the dying Earth.

I don't expect that posting anything about capacity utilization can reach these tiresome fantasies that have been flying around for the entire 21st century while the planet burns, but a pile of solar junk that will be electronic waste in 25 years almost never reaches the advertised peak power. A 1000 Megawatt solar industrial park covering thousands of acres that operates at 25% capacity utilization overall, and requires back up by fossil fuels every night, is not equivalent to a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant on a few acres that can run, without refueling, for years at a time, day and night, irrespective of rain, wind and snow, at 100% capacity utilization, decade upon decade upon decade upon decade. For 75% percent of the time, on average, the solar garbage needs to be backed up by dangerous fossil fuels, a fact about which, again, antinukes couldn't care less. While average continuous power of solar crap is less than 25% of the average continuous power of a nuclear plant, the real issue is not the average, it is the requirement for redundancy which means fossil fuels.

Of course, antinukes couldn't care less about fossil fuels. They never have; they never will. The only reliability in which they are interested is reliably attacking the last best hope of the human race, nuclear energy.

This tortured inability to understand basic units of science the difference between the Joule and the Watt, the latter derived from the first by inclusion by division in units of time - the EIA should know better, as these tables enforce, rather than reduce ignorance - as this misinformation has led us to an ignorant public focused on spin and, as always, unable to grasp reality, is part of the reason behind the generation of extreme global heating we now experience.

The charts above do not, make 8 + 8 greater than 30 in units of energy, Exajoules, not peak power (which renewable energy rarely ever produces) as in the table to which I keep referring, and fails to induce even a modicum of education, not that I expect anyone handing out this tiresome bullshit.




World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

It won't sink in, of course, but nonetheless, a fact is a fact and is not subject to change by religious faith.

I fully recognize, again, that "renewables will save us" types here don't give a rat's ass about the growing use of fossil fuels, so I'll not bother to point out that 8 EJ + 8 EJ does not even remotely approach the three digit numbers for each of the dangerous fossil fuels listed in the table. The "renewables will save us" crowd remain clearly disinterested entirely in the most tragic issue before humanity, extreme global heating generated by dangerous fossil fuel waste. They have always been interested in attacking the only form of reliable, scalable, extremely low carbon form of energy there is, nuclear energy.

They thus remain, as always, willing to openly express their contempt for the collapse of the planetary atmosphere. As such, I personally find them pernicious and responsible for the tragedy before all of humanity but anything that can be done now to address the results of this appalling ignorance, hardly limited to the inability to distinguish between the units the Watt and the Joule, will surely be too little, too late.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. More nonsense

You deny reality.

[NNadir]

28. Really, the claim that the Watt is not a unit of energy is nonsense?

If there are people who make this claim it's a sure indication of how poor some of our science education must be.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Global renewables: Pioneering the energy transition DW Documentary

[NNadir]

13. The "Energy Transition" is a fucking lie; it doesn't exist, and delusional videos can't make it exist.

Once again, understanding that apologists for solar and wind are very, very, very, very bad with numbers, we are burning more dangerous fossil fuels than ever before:



World Energy Outlook 2024

Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

This bullshit delusional slogan about there being an "energy transition" has been running at least since 2010.

In 2010, we were burning dangerous natural gas to produce 115 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous natural gas to produce 145 EJ of energy.

In 2010, we were burning dangerous petroleum to produce 173 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous petroleum to produce 192 EJ of energy.

In 2010, we were burning dangerous coal to produce 153 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous coal to produce 175 EJ of energy.

If there's an "energy transition" it's a transition from appalling to disastrous.

Things are getting worse, faster, and stupid slogans and cheap advertising videos hyping those slogans will not change that fact:

The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update (November).

[Finishline42]

14. As I have said from the beginning of my time on DU

It's a process. Just as a nuclear plant produces energy for decades so to will wind and solar. What was added a decade ago is still producing. What is added this year will produce for many years in the future.

This is the result of consistent investment...

[i]Wind and solar overtake fossil generation throughout the EU

The increase in wind and solar generation displaced fossil fuels, leading to a key milestone. In the first six months of 2024, the EU generated more electricity from wind and solar than from fossil fuels. Combined, they generated 30% (386 TWh) of the EU’s electricity in the first half of 2024, with fossil generation only supplying 27% (343 TWh). Four Member States also hit this milestone for the first time between January and June in 2024: Germany, Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands.

edited to add link
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/eu-wind-and-solar-overtake-fossil-fuels/#:~:text=Wind%20and%20solar%20overtake%20fossil%20generation%20throughout%20the%20EU,-The%20increase%20in&text=In%20the%20first%20six%20months%20of%202024%2C%20the%20EU%20generated,27%25%20(343%20TWh).

[NNadir]

15. Yes, I know very well what apologists for the German burning of coal in 2024 say. I hear it all the time.

It's all soothsaying bullshit with no connection to the reality, typical of the type, delusional and quite toxic.

No amount of information can change their faith based rhetoric or their dogma. They are as realistic as people waiting for the return of Jesus.

The German coal consuming antinuke hellhole for 2023:



Electricity Map

Germany has decided to kill people and the planet with coal waste in order to endorse a pernicious antinuke fantasy.

As of this writing, noon EST (US) 11/09/24, German carbon intensity is 532 grams of CO₂ per kwh compared France's 63 grams of CO₂ per kwh.

Germany's disgusting carbon intensity at this moment would be higher, but they are importing 3.3 GW of power from nuclear powered France, and 495 MW from nuclear powered Sweden.

Their wind garbage is operating as of this moment at 3.22% capacity utilization, producing less power (2.2 GW) than they are importing from France, and way less power than they are generating from coal (18.6 GW).

As I pointed out in the OP, the fucking wind garbage on this planet is falling apart as fast as it can be built.

Congrats to the world of soothsaying antinukes. I'm sure they're very proud of themselves:

Week beginning on November 03, 2024: 423.28 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.38 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.91 ppm
Last updated: November 09, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Eurostat: Renewables take the lead in power generation in 2023

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240627-1

NEWS ARTICLES 27 June 2024
Renewables take the lead in power generation in 2023

…

Renewables made up 44.7% of EU electricity production
In 2023, renewable energy was the leading source of electricity in the EU, accounting for 44.7% of all electricity production. Renewables generated 1.21 million Gigawatt-hour (GWh), marking an increase of 12.4% compared with 2022.

Conversely, electricity generated from fossil fuels decreased by 19.7% compared with the previous year, contributing 0.88 million GWh, or 32.5% of the total electricity production.

Nuclear plants produced 0.62 million GWh or 22.8% the EU energy production, reflecting a 1.2% increase in production in 2023.

Source datasets: nrg_ind_pehcf and nrg_ind_pehnf

When your thinking is at odds with reality, that’s not reality’s problem.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. IEA: CO2 emissions per capita in Germany

https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/emissions

…

Per-capita CO2 emissions
Per-capita energy-related CO2 emissions tend to be higher in more economically-developed countries, but can also vary greatly depending on the structure of the economy and the energy system. For example, per-capita emissions will be higher in countries that rely more on carbon-intensive modes of transportation (like driving and flying), have a higher share of energy-intensive industries (like steel or chemicals) or depend heavily on fossil fuels for power generation.



…

When your beliefs conflict with reality, that’s not reality’s fault.

[NNadir]

22. Wow!!!! We're saved!!!! Germany leads the world!!!!! Who cares if they're burning coal???? It's GREEN coal afterall.

On the other hand, after funding Putin's war with their fossil fuel purchases because they're going "green," it's entirely possible that the per capita consumption is going down because they're shutting plants because of high energy prices owing to stupidity.

Big adjustment! Basf quietly closed 11 factories in Germany and transferred to China for plant investment! (2024)

I hear a lot of tortured rhetoric handed out attempting to justify burning fossil fuels, but this one is highly amusing.

As of this writing, 7:23P EST (US) 11/09/2024, German electricity has a carbon intensity of 594 grams CO₂/kWh; in "percent talk," just about 1000% higher than France's 59 grams CO₂/kWh.



One way to reduce carbon emissions is to fire people from their jobs and close the plants where they work. It's called "exporting pollution."

It's a widely used shell game.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. "It's all ... bullshit with no connection to the reality, typical of the type, delusional and quite toxic."

When your ideas contradict reality, it’s not reality that is delusional.

[NNadir]

24. The reality is, reported with references, that Germany is deindustrializing because of high energy prices.

If I were avoiding references, and just whining off the top of my head, I wouldn't be commenting on what reality is and is not.

That's just me though.

Text from the reference I just provided, and will link again: Big adjustment! Basf quietly closed 11 factories in Germany and transferred to China for plant investment!

...Energy crisis aftereffects! Most overseas chemical revenue fell!

It all starts with the energy crisis in Europe after the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Since 2022, the slowdown in the global economy, geopolitical tensions caused the chemical industry to face a number of problems such as shrinking demand, supply chain shocks and declining market expectations, resulting in a decline in the industry since the high point in 2021. According to the current 2023 annual financial report released by domestic and overseas giants, in the face of high oil prices and falling chemical prices, the performance of global chemical giants is generally under pressure, and the industry as a whole is seeking a breakthrough in weak demand.

According to the performance of the 15 important chemical giants in the world, the performance of the global chemical giants in 2023 generally declined (13/15, accounting for 86.67%). In terms of profits, in addition to Mitsubishi Chemical rose 511%, Wanhua Chemical barely increased, the rest without exception plummeted (13/15, accounting for 86.67%), of which Lotte Chemical plunged 975%, Evonik Industries AG plunged 126%, DuPont fell 92.8%, Formosa Plastic Group fell 80%. From the partial results of the first quarter of 2024, the situation has not improved.

An important reason for the sharp fall in profits: excessive cost increases. Since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia's gas supply to Europe has continued to decrease, and the gas supply of "Nord Stream 1" once dropped to 0. This has forced Europe to use high levels of natural gas as an alternative fuel. European gas prices ($4.8 / mmBTU) and electricity prices (€0.05 / KWH) are still higher than pre-pandemic levels...

Oh wait!!! I'm sorry!!! So called "renewable energy" is cheap! I read it all the time, right here, where some people are apparently living in that "renewable energy" nirvana that's always getting here, "by 1990," "by 2000," "by 2010," "by 2020," and as I read today, "by 2030." It's "cheap" if everyone is willing to turn of the lights, huddle in the dark, stay out of work, go nowhere, shudder in the cold because of an episode, no matter how long it lasts, of Dunkelflaute. Otherwise they have to pay the climate and economic costs of redundancy.

Household electricity prices worldwide in December 2023, by select country

Germany is reported to be tied with the UK for the 4th highest electricity prices in the world.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Electricity prices in Germany rose because of fossil fuel prices (not renewables as you imply)

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-electricity

…

Electricity price components

The energy crisis that threw European energy markets in turmoil in 2022 has caused wholesale power prices in Germany to spike, reaching unprecedented levels throughout the year. Prices began to tick upward by the end of 2021 due to rising demand globally, as more countries emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic. The crisis then intensified as a result of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The ensuing trade conflict between Russia and other European nations led to a shortage of fossil fuels in the EU, causing prices for electricity to shoot up - especially in Germany, where gas plants still account for a substantial part of electricity generation. Moreover, prices for CO2 emissions allowances in the European trading system (ETS) more than tripled between 2020 and 2022, putting further pressure on electricity costs.

Households in Germany on average paid 40.07 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in the second half of 2022, compared to 32.16 ct/kWh in the previous year. The increase was mostly caused by higher procurement and retailing costs for electricity, which according to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) rose by 160 percent compared with 2021. At the same time, the price increase for households was dampened by the abolition of Germany’s renewable energy levy, which stood at 3.72 ct/kWh, before being eliminated in mid-2022.

The average household with an annual electricity consumption of 3,500 kWh was charged 116.86 euros per month in the second half of 2022, the BDEW said. In nominal terms, this corresponds to a total price increase of 134 percent compared to 1998, when the internal European energy market was introduced. However, the real terms increase, which is calculated by adjusting the price increase for inflation, has been considerably lower. Compared to the year before, electricity prices in December 2022 were 37 percent higher, comparison website Check24 found.

The share of politically determined components, such as taxes, levies, and surcharges dropped significantly as a result of the crisis, from more than 50 percent in 2021 to 28.3 percent in the second half of 2022. At the same time, the share of acquisition and retailing costs grew to over 51 percent. Grid fees accounted for more than 20 percent of the price, including metering and associated services. The fees can vary considerably between individual regions, depending on the capcity of the local grid, population density and necessary load management in the region to keep the grid stable.

…

[John ONeill]

18. 'Wind and solar overtook fossil fuels' - ?

'Four Member States also hit this milestone for the first time between January and June in 2024: Germany, Belgium, Hungary and the Netherlands.'
Belgium and Hungary only managed this alleged milestone because each already gets just under half their power from nuclear, making it an easy target. In the Netherlands, nuclear only made up 6% of generation last year, but the government has a firm intention to greatly increase this.
Germany's government has just collapsed. The next one is likely to be led by the Christian Democrats, who will try to repair the wreckage of the country's energy policy. Starting by turning back on the three huge reactors (1,400 megawatts each, with over 90% capacity factors) which the last government shut down at the end of 2022, in the middle of an energy crisis.
By the way, the January to June figures tend to flatter unreliables (wind and solar). July to December has more winter months, when power demand is higher, and solar output falls to nearly a tenth of summer max. Wind is higher on average, but can still go through periods of up to a month, with very low winds over the whole of northern Europe.