The CAGC is a trade association representing companies that do seismic work in the Canadian Energy Upstream Oil and Gas Industry - www.cagc.ca
On the glaring intellectual inconsistencies in 100% Wind Water and Sunlight
By: A Chemist in Langley
Ralph Waldo Emerson is his famous essaySelf-Reliancecoined the phrase “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. As readers of my blog know I have spent a lot of time researching and commenting on the 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight series (100% WWS) with the latest article being100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World(called 100% WWS World hereafter). What I can confidently say from that research is that the champions of this approach are not small minds. Frankly the amount of effort that has gone into this project is admirable as is their goal, to achieve a 100% clean energy future. This is a goal I share, I might add. The problem, to my mind, is that they have failed to convince and apparently do not understand economics. As I point out in my postMore on 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight and the Council of Canadians “100% Clean economy” by 2050 goalthe costs of this endeavour would be ruinous, especially given the suggestion that80% of the effort [and thus the costs] would need to be accomplished by 2030. For Canada alone, that represents over 1 trillion dollars of energy infrastructure (according to 100% WWS World spreadsheets), a new power grid and upgraded energy transmission system (neither of which they have costed) all within 14 years. More problematically, from an intellectual perspective, are the glaring intellectual inconsistencies in the 100% WWS program. Now I surely can’t make such a broad statement without any supporting data so the rest of this post will address what I view as the most obvious of the glaring intellectual inconsistencies in the 100% WWS scheme.
My concern with the intellectual incoherence underlying the 100% WWS scheme is their insistence on simultaneously accepting and rejecting technologies and/or the risks associated with those energy technologies. While there are several examples of the 100% WWS team simultaneously accepting and rejecting a technology let’s start with the low-hanging fruit: the role of water in the energy program.
The 100% WWS team have a particularly odd love/hate relationship with water. When it comes to nuclear energy the 100% WWS team is clear; they eschew the technology and do not incorporate it in their calculations. Even in a country like France, that currently gets the majority of its power via nuclear, 100% WWS World requires France to be run entirely from non-nuclear sources. The same cannot be said for hydro. They go in the exact opposite direction with hydro. The 100% WWS plan does not make use of any new hydro, but retains all the existing hydro. The W.A.C Bennett dam in British Columbia is absolutely fine but the plannedGrand Ethiopian Renaissance Damis not allowed. Moreover, while they apparently do not like the technology, and apparently see it as a dead-end (since they add no more), they still expect that efficiency of the hydro will improve and thus they assume thatcapacity factor of the exiting hydro will increase. So the first example of their cognitive dissonance is the fact that under 100% WWS World existing hydro is good, but new hydro is supposed to be so bad that it cannot be used.
Staying with water, as described above, 100% WWS World does not include the creation of new reservoirs behind dams. Apparently for the creators of the scheme there is something inherently wrong about water reservoirs. However, in100% WWS USApumped hydro storage represents 5.42% of the US energy storage and pumped storage is mentioned in the other papers as an important energy storage technology.Pumped hydro storage, by its very nature, requires the use of reservoirs at both the top and the bottom of a topographic grade. So under 100% WWS hydro reservoirs are a bad thing when connected to a hydro dam but are okay when the same water is held behind a similar dam so that pumped hydro can be used as an energy storage technology?
Now the various examples involving water do not represent the only examples of intellectual inconsistency in the 100% WWS scheme. Prior to his blocking me on Twitter, I got to follow Dr. Jacobson’s outgoing missives. One of the technologies Dr. Jacobson regularly decries on his Twitter feed is fracking. Examples include:
“Study Links Fracking To Premature Births, High-Risk Pregnancies” Oct 9, 2015
“No fracking in NY–>1 step closer to 100% WWS” Oct 17, 2014
Now I have written a bit about fracking, including discussing the misinformation being spouted by opponents with regards to thetoxicology of fracking fluids. I have also written a lot aboutgeothermal energy. As anyone who has read my writing knows, I highly approve of the technology. Unfortunately, there are not many geologic formations that will allow for the extraction of geothermal energy at industrial scaleswithout the use of fracking. As described in the literature, fracking of one sort or another is necessary for mostlarge, industrial geothermal facilities. Some activists try to distinguish between “fracking” and “slipping” and claim that “hydro-shearing” is different than fracking, but the earth doesn’t care if it is being blasted by one technology or the other. If you fear that fracking will enhance geologic instability and result in earthquakes, well geology doesn’t really know the difference between these three named technologies. Put simply,enhanced geothermal is geothermal frackingand any risk posed by fracking for natural gas has comparable risks when applied to a geothermal facility.
As a final example of intellectual incoherence for this posting I will choose Dr. Jacobson’s favourite hobgoblin: nuclear power. One of the biggest complaints about 100% WWS World is the complete exclusion of nuclear power. As I have described previously,one of the major bases for eschewing this technologyin 100% WWS involves the radioactive waste generated in the mining and disposal of nuclear waste. As I have described numerous times, the production of the rare earth metals necessary for 100% WWS produces a lot of radioactive waste. It has been estimate that refining one ton of rare earth elements results in approximately75 cubic meters of acidic waste water and about one ton of radioactive waste residue.That is a one-to-one ratio for rare earth metals and radioactive waste. As I have previously noted, a single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5 megawatts) typically contains600 kilograms of rare earth metalswhich means about 600 kg of radioactive waste. According to 100% WWS World, Canada will need approximately 60,000 – 5 MW wind turbines to meet our 100% WWS goal. That works out to over 36,000 tons of radioactive waste residue. That total is only for the wind turbines needed for 100% WWS in Canada. Once you add all the rare earths needed to electrify everything, that number will sky-rocket. Could someone please explain to me why radioactive waste is bad when associated with the mining and refining for nuclear power but is not so bad when associated with wind, water and sunlight?
So to summarize, under 100% WWS World existing dams are good but any new dams are bad. Storage of water in reservoirs is bad when used in hydro energy but absolutely necessary and good when used for pumped storage. Collecting the energy of water running downhill is good when used in pumped storage but bad when it is run-of-the-river hydro. Fracking is dangerous and an unacceptable risk when used for natural gas, but the same technology is acceptable when used for geothermal energy. The presence of radioactice waste is an unacceptable by-product of the nuclear industry but is an acceptable by-product of the rare earth industry.
In his renowned book1984George Orwell introduced us to a number of fascinating terms/ideas that have become staples of modern intellectual thought. One of the most interesting, from my perspective, is the concept of “doublethink” which RationalWiki defines as “simultaneously accepting and rejecting a given proposition”. Doublethink is comparable to the concept of “cognitive dissonance” without all the negative clinical associations. As they put it in RationalWiki: Doublethink could be “thought of as cognitive dissonance that not only remains unresolved but is also desirable to leave unresolved”. There are few better examples of modern doublethink than the sell job associated with the 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight series.
A lot of people might suggest that I am being a bit harsh by referring to 100% WWS as “doublethink” and for this I am sorry. I attribute no ill intent to Dr. Jacobson and his team. Rather, I see them as true believers. Like evangelical Christians who will cite the Leviticus edict against homosexuality (20:13) while ignoring the edict against seafood (11:12), I see the 100% WWS supporters as simply not recognizing the level of their personal cognitive dissonance.
Published: The Economist A T 107 METRES , the three carbon-fibre blades of a Haliade-X marine wind turbine are longer than the wingspan of any airliner ever made. The generator which transforms their rotation—over 300km an hour at the tip—into power requires over 100 powerful magnets made of exotic metals and untold lengths of coiled-up copper. The blades, generator and associated gubbins, weighing around 900 tonnes all-in, have to be installed on a pylon so tall that the blade-tips reach almost as high above the waves as the pinnacle of the Transamerica Pyramid rises over the 600 block of San Francisco’s Montgomery Street. In May, President Joe Biden’s administration announced the approval of Vineyard Wind, a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts which will require GE , an American industrial giant, to supply 60 of these airliner-skyscraper-stick-insect hybrids. With a planned capacity of 800 megawatts ( MW ) Vineyard Wind would on its own increase America’s offshore
By: Brian Wm. Schulte PG and Henry Lyatsky Prelude The interpretation and opinions expressed here are the authors' ideas on related science that interests us and affects us. Some members have quite different interpretations of this science and the editorial committee actively welcomes other articles from other perspectives on this and other interesting topics “We all know that human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and in unprecedented ways.” George H.W. Bush “To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.” Henry Kissinger Many feel passionate about climate change, and they may feel that the climate concerns discussed in this paper are either overblown or understated. Some may feel that climate change due to man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not a valid scientific hypothesis at all, while others may think the world is facing an existential and imminent climate catastrophe. We find no scientifi
Executive Summary The world is currently facing simultaneous energy and climate crises. There is considerable scientific consensus that the impacts of a changing climate are having significant human costs as well as adverse impacts on biodiversity. And broad agreement exists that we must put in place strong measures to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. At the same time, some climate policy responses have had significant negative effects on energy security, threatening the global economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and putting out future economic security at risk. Sadly, the pace, logistics, and costs of the transition from fossil fuels to low or zero carbon sources of energy are still hotly debated. This is because reliable and affordable energy is fundamental to our modern economic, political, and social systems, as well as to human well-being, and fossil fuels are still the most reliable and affordable sources of that energy. Energy transitions take