Realities of Fossil Fuels vs. Wind, Solar and Batteries

1.       Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries (w/s/b) do not magically appear out of thin air.  A lot of fossil fuels are burned to produce them for mining/processing of raw materials in multiple countries around the world (many with little to no environmental controls or labor laws), transport to/from manufacturing facility, coal powered fabrication process mostly in China, site preparation, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal – with the disposal component another looming environmental disaster.  Each step requires the use of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery given that neither wind or solar can produce enough energy to power the machinery used to produce them.  Wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.  They don’t replace fossil fuels, they only increase the need for them.  manhattan.institute/art…

2.       Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity, but CANNOT make any of the products or transportation fuels that get made from fossil fuels that support:

·       Hospitals

·       Airports

·       Militaries

·       Medical equipment

·       Telecommunications

·       Communications systems

·       Space programs

·       Appliances

·       Electronics

·       Sanitation systems (water/sewage treatment)

·       Heating and ventilating

·       Transportation – vehicles, rail, ocean, and air

·       Construction – roads and buildings

3.       Fossil fuels are also used to produce synthetic fertilizers which greatly enhance crop production.  Oil derivatives are also the basis for over 6000 products used in everyday life. In effect, there is not one thing in our lives that we eat, drink, wear, walk on, use or otherwise consume that is not 100% dependent on fossil fuels.  americaoutloud.news/mod…

4.       Wind turbines and solar panels require orders of magnitude more area than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants.  For example, the 1200 MW nameplate Bridge City gas plant in Texas sits on about 26 acres and generates electricity 24x7x365.  The Blevins 270 MW nameplate solar complex sits on 2300 acres (over 3.5 square miles) or 88 times larger than Bridge City with a nameplate capacity less than 1 quarter.  To get to the same nameplate capacity, Blevins would be over 15 square miles or 352 times the gas plant.  Capacity factors for solar vary by location, but roughly 25% is the maximum capacity factor (in New England, it is far less).  Therefore, for the solar plant to produce the same amount of electricity as the gas plant, 4 times the land area for solar equivalent nameplate is required – or over 60 square miles or 1408 times the land required for the gas plant.  And the solar complex still does not generate any electricity from dusk to dawn so another power source is still required.  In fact, solar only produces at name plate from 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear cloudless days where the temps don't exceed 77 degrees. robertbryce.substack.co… and edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.…

5.       Utility scale lithium-ion batteries require an enormous amount of raw materials and consume an enormous amount of energy to produce.  For example, 1-ton utility-scale battery has a storage capacity of around 100 kWh and requires ~ 70 tons of mined and processed raw materials to be manufactured. This is the energy equivalent of about ~40 kg of coal or ~20 litres of oil.  That battery would power all of Berlin for about 30 minutes (assuming 2 GW peak power) or all of Germany for just under a minute (at peak power of 80 GW).   To produce that battery requires 450 GWh of energy just to be manufactured including the energy required for metals and materials. That’s ~450 times more energy input than its rated storage capacity.  wattsupwiththat.com/202…

6.       The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is the most cited metric for comparing w/s/b costs to fossil fuels and nuclear and purports to show that wind and solar are less expensive.  However, LCOE ignores natural capacity factors, storage and backup costs, and system integration/infrastructure expenses. A more appropriate measure is FCOE (Full Cost of Electricity) which includes all the invisible infrastructure required to make wind, solar, and batteries “work.”  FCOE clearly shows that wind and solar are far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear.  wattsupwiththat.com/202…

7.       Data shows that wind and solar life spans are far shorter than advertised meaning that they will need to be replaced more frequently or discarded earlier than projected adding to the effective operating and disposal cost.  instituteforenergyresea…

8.       Contrary to the claims re: social costs of carbon, fossil fuels have enabled people to live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives. Infant mortality dropped. Women didn’t die in childbirth at the same rates. Food became more plentiful, clean water more reliable, heat more accessible, and medical care more effective.   Nearly every measurable improvement in human well-being since 1850 can be traced back to the power of coal, oil, and natural gas. And no matter how fervently activists try to paint fossil fuels as the villain in their climate morality play, they remain the reason billions are alive and thriving today.  irrationalfear.substack…

Transitioning from fossil fuels to wind, solar and batteries is a physical impossibility and the push to do so will result in serious economic and environmental damage while posing a serious threat to national security.   manhattan.institute/art… and wattsupwiththat.com/202…