ENVIRONMENT – Green enviro-dreams are based on fantasy, not science

(Image: Creative

Energy analyst Mark Mills says we’re decades away from renewables providing 100% of the power that drives our economy

The Fraser Institute

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, including the David Suzuki Foundation, remain enamoured of renewable energy, telling followers that the “global push for cleaner, healthier energy is on. With costs dropping dramatically, renewable energy is becoming the best choice for the environment and the economy.”

Ken Green.

The Green Party of Canada is on board, touting the idea that Alberta “should be ready” to go to 100 per cent renewables.

And the Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada says that not only can we go 100 per cent wind, water and solar for “all purposes,” we can reap a windfall by doing it.

Renewable Cities notes cities going big for the 100 per cent dream include Edmonton, Banff and Victoria.

Into all this green dreaming steps Mark Mills, an energy analyst with the Manhattan Institute. He recently published a report (The “New Energy Economy”: Anexercise in Magical Thinking) that pokes many holes in the idea that wind, solar power and energy storage will provide 100 per cent of the power that drives our economy.

Mills finds that alternatives to hydrocarbons provide about two per cent of the world’s energy – a long way from 100 per cent. In fact, reaching 100 per cent over the next 20 years would require global renewable energy to increase by 90-fold. By contrast, Mills finds it took 50 years for global oil and gas production to increase by 10-fold.

Mills gleefully dives into his physics background to debunk the notion that wind/solar/batteries will follow the same trajectory as Moore’s law for transistors – that the number of transistors per chip would increase two-fold every two years.

Mills offers an observation: “If photovoltaics scaled by Moore’s law, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. If batteries scaled by Moore’s law, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power an A380 [airbus] to Asia.”

Yes, wind power, solar power and batteries have gotten cheaper and more efficient (as new technologies often do), showing a 10-fold reduction in costs. But the days of 10-fold increases are behind us in the solar power sector, so renewables have a long road before they compete with fossil fuels.

According to Mills, for the same US$1 million, solar panels could produce about 40 million kilowatt hours (Kw) of electricity over a 30-year lifecycle. For the same $1 million, modern wind turbines can produce 55 million kW over 30 years. Those are impressive gains. But Mills points out that same $1 million worth of hardware for a shale rig would produce enough natural gas over 30 years to generate more than 300 million kW.

Moreover, the physical limit of capturing energy with wind turbines (called the Betz limit) is about 60 per cent. Current wind turbine technologies already push close to that limit, capturing 45 per cent of wind’s kinetic energy. There’s no 10-fold increase for wind in the future.

The same is true of solar photovoltaic cells. Here, Mills observes, the theoretical limit of efficiency (called the Shockley-Queisser limit) is about 33 per cent – 33 per cent of the photons striking the solar cells are converted into electrons. The best commercial photovoltaic cells now capture around 26 per cent. Like wind, they’re pressing toward the limit.

On the battery front, Mills picks on everyone’s favourite poster child, Elon Musk and the batteries for his Teslas. To store the energy equivalent of one 300-pound barrel of oil, you’d need 20,000 pounds worth of Tesla batteries. And while Mills sees promising technologies on the horizon – non-lithium materials have shown impressive gains in efficiency (up to 300 per cent) – those gains don’t constitute a 10-fold improvement over current battery technologies.

Finally, Mills observes that energy revolutions remain beyond the horizon and can only dawn through the basic sciences – not product development. But he notes that 95 per cent of private-sector research and development (and most such government spending) flows to development, not basic research.

Governments must stop pandering to the idea we can let our fossil fuel infrastructure languish, since we’ll clearly be stranded as we quickly move to the great green energy future. We’ll need fossil fuels for many decades and it’s time policy-makers get their eyes on the prize and drop all the “magical thinking.”

Kenneth Green is an analyst at the Fraser Institute.

© Troy Media

About Mel Rothenburger (8559 Articles) is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

4 Comments on ENVIRONMENT – Green enviro-dreams are based on fantasy, not science

  1. Ian M MacKenzie // May 26, 2019 at 1:33 PM // Reply

    Despite Mr. Mills training and background his comparisons leave us nothing but a world where, if we relax pressure on our governments to go slow on conversion and allow them to continue subsidizing fossil fuels we won’t have a planet worth living on. All his mathematics won’t change that. Nobody is saying we’ll immediately convert to renewables, but the faster the more likely that we may have a planet that is tolerable. So my suggestion is to keep going on “magical thinking” and maybe we’ll end up with some “magical government policies”. Certainly Canada is presently not magical in thinking or policies.

  2. Sean McGuinness // May 26, 2019 at 8:45 AM // Reply

    Great, let’s throw some cold water onto the renewable energy movement. Yup, money is better spent on a shale gas rig than a wind turbine. Ken is asking us to sober up here. I mean, hell it’s perfectly ok for us to build our darn wind turbines, but just remember, we need oil.

    When the planet is 5 degrees warmer and either half on fire or half under water, Ken will have his sobering moment.

  3. David Goar // May 26, 2019 at 7:53 AM // Reply

    Any analysis that does not take into account the real environmental cost of continuing to rely upon burning fossil fuels is irreparably incomplete.

    The writer, from the right wing Fraser Institute, attempts to marshal scientific analysis to support the fossil fuel industry and economy, while only delivering a skewed and self-serving scientific explanation of the science and engineering involved in making the transition to renewables. His own grasp of the pertinent science appears to be incomplete and flawed.

    It is precisely his kind of pretend expertise that allows this debate to continue while the Earth, and its inhabitants, inch ever closer to irreversible climate chaos.

    We cannot continue to focus upon whether we will stop burning things to generate the energy we need. It is abundantly clear to the vast preponderance of the world’s scientists that we cannot, without paying an unthinkable price The only real opposition to the clear science is promoted, funded and propagated by the fossil fuel industry and the governments who support and subsidize it.

    The real question needs to be: Why do we pay attention to, or publish, this kind of propaganda masquerading as science?

  4. Photons do not get converted into electrons…energy from the photons get electrons excited.
    But an economy on dead or dying planet is not an exiting prospect. Hence we must conserve and use less…not exciting enough for the Fraser Institute?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: