HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » A Reactor Designed to Bur... » Reply #7

Response to CentralMass (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 08:26 AM

7. This "percent talk" is obscene.

It is obscene because energy demand worldwide is rising, and the fastest rising source of energy on this planet is not wind, nor solar.

It's natural gas, which grew in 2017 - the last year for which we have comprehensive data - by a factor of 4 greater than wind, solar, geothermal, tidal combined.

Worldwide, the solar, wind, geothermal and tidal industry grew 1/7 the rate of worldwide energy demand in 2017.

Combined this trash technologies, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal combined didn't grow as fast as petroleum.

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

The solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

We're at 412 ppm of carbon dioxide. Do we give a shit? Do we care?

I really question when people are going to abandon this obscene percent talk and wake up.

Before being subject to all kinds of unjustified selective attention with respect to risks, the nuclear industry grew to 28.8 exajoules in less than 20 years, led by the United States, which built more than 100 reactors while producing the lowest priced electricity in the world.

It is, what it has always been, a gift by the finest minds of the 20th century to an increasingly ignorant generation that somehow has convinced itself that only nuclear energy need be perfect or other forms of energy can suck money and human lives without restriction.

The fact is that if wind energy were clean - it's not because steel, aluminum, plastics, carbon fibers, and environmentally the most questionable, lanthanides are all carbon intensive materials - it would still be incapable of meeting the increases in world wide energy demand, not the totals, just the increases.

Concrete, a giant feature of this offshoire tragedy in Britain and elsewhere is also a huge contributor to climate change..

I have analyzed in this space, the lifetime of wind turbines in that offshore oil and gas drilling hellhole, Denmark. It's about 18 years on average. In less than 20 years many of the world's wind turbines will need replacement, and the garbage the old ones have become will need to be hauled away.

After the combustion of dangerous fossil fuels for cars, heating, power generation, the two material costs, steel and concrete are the largest contributors to climate change, steel at well over a billion tons out of the rising 35 billion tons we dump on future generations each year, concrete another billion or so.

Thus the low energy to mass ratio connected with the wind industry means it's a rather dirty industry, even if one chooses to ignore, as everyone does - it's baleful impact on the avian biosphere.

Given that after decade, after decade after tons and tons of "percent talk" about wind and solar things are getting worse, not better we really should rethink our dogma.

Reality may suck, but it is reality.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.