From Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
My repeated calls for a zero-emission grid demonstration project have sparked heated debate among knowledgeable commentators. While most people support my position, some say the demonstration program is truly unnecessary and a waste of energy.
The gist of the argument for those who dispute the need for demonstration schemes is that it is obvious that a zero-emissions grid powered primarily by wind and solar generation is not achievable, so the expense and effort of building actual physical facilities is unjustified. Before building a physical demonstration project, an engineering feasibility study must be conducted, and within the first day of the feasibility study, everyone realized that it was not feasible. All it takes is some rough calculations using basic arithmetic and the whole endeavor fails.
Frequent commentator Richard Greene led the opposition to the demonstration plan. From Richard's comment on my August 10th post:
There is probably no need for a good demonstration program involving manufacturing and agriculture. A real local utility's “Nut Zero” grid project plan on paper would make grid engineers laugh hysterically. Funds allocated to battery backup are far from sufficient to cover the required battery capacity (GWh). A backup natural gas power plant can do the job, but no natural gas backup is required. . . . 100% wind and solar will never work due to composite energy drought, wind drought and solar drought (batteries are too expensive).
A representative of the party supporting the demonstration project was “dm” who commented on the post on August 13. excerpt:
Because many people are skeptical of essay analysis, life experience is a necessary teacher. Therefore, demonstration projects are needed to prove the folly of a “sustainable” grid. In addition, the demonstration project must be located in an area with a dense population of nut-free enthusiasts, and all costs must be paid separately by households, businesses, and institutions located in the demonstration area.
I am naturally sympathetic to Richard's position in this debate. How do I justify spending potentially billions of dollars in public funds when my own calculations, either made or verified, indicate that the project will never come close to success?
But then we have to look at what is happening in large countries and countries that are moving towards the stated goal of a zero-emission grid but have never had an effective demonstration program. In some of these cases (Germany, UK), wasted resources are now in the trillions, not billions. At some point, the entire endeavor will inevitably end in some kind of hard-to-predict catastrophe (prolonged power outage? Multiplying consumer costs tenfold or more?). By then, many of the working resources that make the grid function will have been destroyed and must be recreated, adding further trillions of dollars in cost.
Consider the German example. Germany is a very large country (with a population of more than 800,000, twice that of California and four times that of New York), with an annual GDP of more than 4 trillion US dollars, ranking fourth in the world. As early as the 1990s, Germany was one of the first countries to embark on the road to a zero-emission grid, and officially adopted the “Energy Transition” 14 years ago in 2010. All go further.
However, when I look around for information on Germany's progress towards zero-emission electricity, I can't find any concern or awareness that this may not ultimately be achievable. Maybe this exists in a German resource that I can't read. But from everything I can find, it seems like Germany is going ahead blindly, thinking that if they just build enough wind turbines and solar panels at some point, they can get the zero-emission electricity they crave.
Please visit the Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) website for the latest information. At least when it comes to electricity, you won't find any signs that achieving a zero-emissions utopia might be problematic in the future:
The “Energy Transition” – Germany’s transition to a safe, environmentally friendly and economically successful energy future – involves a massive reorganization of the energy supply system to use renewable energy in all sectors. . . . [T]The power industry's transition to renewable energy has been very successful so far. . . . Although renewable energy accounted for only 6.3% of electricity demand in 2000, [sic] This proportion has grown significantly over the past few years, exceeding 10% in 2005 and exceeding 25% in 2013. Wind power is by far the most important energy source in Germany's electricity mix.
This process has been going on for about 30 years, and they barely get more than 50% of their electricity from “renewable energy.” Although they may claim “Wind [is] By far the most important source in Germany’s electricity mix,” In fact, when you break it down, you see that wind and solar combined provide well under 50%. According to solar energy advocate Fraunhofer Institute, “biomass” provided about 42.3 TWh of Germany's electricity in 2023 (about 8%), hydropower provided 19.5 TWh (about 4%), and “non-renewable waste” (I assume this means burning garbage) ) provides 4.5 TWh (about 1%). The remaining 40% or less is used for wind and solar energy.
If they continue to build solar and wind facilities and expect batteries as backup, has anyone calculated how much battery storage they will need? Not something I could find. This is the website of a company called Fluence, a subsidiary of German industrial giant Siemens. They excitedly predict a rapid expansion of grid storage in Germany:
By 2030, storage capacity will grow 40 times to 57 GWh.
Wow, it has grown 40 times! That may sound like a lot. But Germany's average electricity demand is about 50 GW, so 57 GWh of battery storage in 2030 would be about 1 hour's worth. Efficient calculation of the amount of energy storage required to support major wind/solar grid operations for approximately 500 to 1000 hours.
A chart from another website shows the growth of energy storage in Germany so far this year.
Look at that acceleration! But when the wind and sun stop producing electricity on a calm night, the 10 GWh of storage capacity they currently have will only last about 10 minutes at most.
In short, this seemingly complex big country is a complete illusion, and no voice of reason can be heard. A completely failed demonstration project is the only hope of saving them.
Relevant
