Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/th...df67&ei=66

INTRO: In a story filled with all the standard climate alarmist narratives, USA Today recently reported on the rising movement by local governments in the United States to refuse to permit unwanted wind and solar industrial sites in their jurisdictions.

After setting the stage by parroting the Biden administration goals of “100 per cent clean energy by 2035, a goal that depends on the building of large-scale solar and wind,” USA Today points to the reality that such big, intrusive, ugly, and destructive industrial sites have been rejected by twice as many county governments as approved them.

[...] Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood... (MORE - more details)
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Cynic's Corner: With respect to climate change, much of "green energy" is greenwashing, where there is still massive manufacturing, extraction of resources, environmental degradation and consequent power consumption transpiring just to the produce and implement this replacement technology (with the applicable industries reaping immense profits from the "inadequate as advertised" transition). When it comes to remedying climate change, the adoption of plain people lifestyle (primitive technology) along with a great reduction in the number of human consumers is the real ticket, instead of this "having your cake and eating it, too" facade.

In the UK we get about 40% of our energy from renewables .. compared with the US figure of about 20%. Here you'd have to look quite hard to find a wind or solar thing unless you lived next to one - in which case obviously easy to find. The number of birds and bats killed by windmills is tragic - but they do have to be quite unlucky to even find one let alone get killed by it. There is a city not far from me (Bristol) with windmills looming over the industrial region .. if (when) one sheds a blade people may die - as to whether the mortality rate from falling windmill blades is higher or lower than lightning strike and normal toilet related deaths I don't know - if this is part of the case against windmills then we need some statistics. There may be a point where more people are being killed by falling windmill blades than are being born - we need to guard against this. In reality we live in a sea of bullshit - I can only report that as far as I can make out the renewable energy sources in the UK are either invisible or (sometimes) stunning pieces of architecture/art/life. If the 40% increased to 100% I'd be very pleased - and the chances of me even seeing anything new are very small.

(Mar 2, 2024 04:32 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]In the UK we get about 40% of our energy from renewables .. compared with the US figure of about 20%. Here you'd have to look quite hard to find a wind or solar thing unless you lived next to one - in which case obviously easy to find. The number of birds and bats killed by windmills is tragic - but they do have to be quite unlucky to even find one let alone get killed by it. There is a city not far from me (Bristol) with windmills looming over the industrial region .. if (when) one sheds a blade people may die - as to whether the mortality rate from falling windmill blades is higher or lower than lightning strike and normal toilet related deaths I don't know - if this is part of the case against windmills then we need some statistics. There may be a point where more people are being killed by falling windmill blades than are being born - we need to guard against this. In reality we live in a sea of bullshit - I can only report that as far as I can make out the renewable energy sources in the UK are either invisible or (sometimes) stunning pieces of architecture/art/life. If the 40% increased to 100% I'd be very pleased - and the chances of me even seeing anything new are very small.

The last time we passed through a sprawling area of them, we saw as many as five wind turbines in the process of being replaced, and many more that weren't turning with the rest. They weren't rusty-looking yet like a first or older generation farm, so I very much doubt the supposed life expectancy of 20 to 25 years is holding up.

According to sources, costs for replacing them or tearing them down ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 dollars, which actually seems cheap to me, given the height and weight and cumbersomeness of the things (and transportation challenges for blades down a highway).

The average hub height of land-based wind turbines in the US (currently) is circa the height of the modest hills around here, and 34 meters taller than the nearest hydroelectric dam. The ones erected since 2022 are taller than the Statue of Liberty.

Germany, of course, may have the loftiest ones on average of all, but I'm not sure if that's land-based or sea-based. Even in the US, the latter are more elevated than the former.

More birds die from mobile phone masts.

One of the main problems with green energy is the ability to produce the volume of materials required to be able to make it sustainable. That means there needs to be more work towards actually recycling the older versions of products as they reach their end of life (for instance handling old solar panels) As for the shear volume itself, it can take up alot of space. Off the coast of where I am, they've been slowly trying to increase the windfarm capacity. Currently they are still only looking at wind, however there are other types such as tidal which haven't currently been implimented. (Ideally the windmills should really have a bit of solar and tidal also applied to them to generate move energy at all times)

As for solar farms, currently I've seen a couple here and abroad (The US ones were far larger). The current problem is they do take up alot of room, they usually have livestock like goats or sheep to help maintain keep the grass from growing between the panels. With a bit of a change it would be possible to grow crops under the panels, so it wouldn't waste so much space however it would still require a decent structure to stabilise it.

In both the windfarm and solarfarm situations there are certain variables that can be a problem such as extreme instances of weather. Solar prefers to work between certain temperatures and only really outputs its fullest at certain times of the day (due to the method used), wind can only process windspeeds within a particular comfort zone and even then it can require it being in the "right" direction. Neither like huge hailstones.

Lastly another problem is the method of energy storage... Batteries. Battery banks again don't like specific temperates and really don't like high impacts. Further to that it's possible that various electromagnetic events (both natural and manmade) could cause the batteries to lose charge (or worse).

It's complicated!
When we ignore all the supply problems faced by ship, plane, car, road, phone and house builders (among others) we are left with the supply problems associated with building solar and wind farms.
The statue of liberty is a symbol of America embracing liberty and isn't contraversial - a windmill of the same height is a symbol of America rejecting a fossil fuel economy and as a result is very contraversial.
In the UK the demand for electricity fluctuates widely over a 24 hour period - if (say) there were enough windmills to meet peak demand then at least half would need to be idle (feathered) the rest of the time. When the Sun shines solar generation may undercut wind generators so again the windmills would not be turning.
There will be be good and bad windmill manufacturers .. the industry is still too new to sort the one from the other.
There will doubtless be windfarms where the investors have sailed off into the sunset and there will be no maintenance.
If you go to the places where there are wind and/or solar 'farms' then (surprise!) - you'll see them. I get the impression America is quite a large country - there must be many places where you don't see wind and/or solar 'farms' - am I wrong?

(Mar 2, 2024 11:11 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ][...] One of the main problems with green energy is the ability to produce the volume of materials required to be able to make it sustainable.  [...] Off the coast of where I am, they've been slowly trying to increase the windfarm capacity. [...] As for solar farms, currently I've seen a couple here and abroad (The US ones were far larger).  The current problem is they do take up a lot of room [...] In both the windfarm and solarfarm situations there are certain variables that can be a problem such as extreme instances of weather. [...]

(Mar 4, 2024 01:49 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ][...] When we ignore all the supply problems faced by ship, plane, car, road, phone and house builders (among others) we are left with the supply problems associated with building solar and wind farms.  [...] When the Sun shines solar generation may undercut wind generators so again the windmills would not be turning. There will be be good and bad windmill manufacturers .. the industry is still too new to sort the one from the other. There will doubtless be windfarms where the investors have sailed off into the sunset and there will be no maintenance. [...] I get the impression America is quite a large country - there must be many places where you don't see wind and/or solar 'farms' - am I wrong?

More to the point, is a "revolt against green energy" actually an otiose illusion or much ado about nothing? At the fundamental level, what will really have changed with respect to the era of "green energy"? We're still relying on capitalism and its industry slash technology to save us from environmental degradation, ransacking of resources, climate change, etc.

Which means the Great Machine's advertising and propaganda campaign continuing its painting of an optimistic picture -- the appearance of salvation -- just as with former slogans over past decades trumpeting prosperity and other fruits. But in fifty years there will still be complaining about environmental degradation, ransacking of resources, climate change, etc and outcries of needing to go yet another different path.

And the collectivist political orientation does not remove the source of global warming and environmental destruction, either.[1] Maoism never spurned the industrial complex any more than the Soviet Union's approach did (the latter pejoratively labeled "state capitalism") -- it merely championed dissolving the distinction of capitalism's prime pet as an urban phenomenon. Even if a radical variant of agrarian socialism (that truly favored and performed the deed) were to come along in the middle of the century that became popular, that view would be wishful thinking for devotees, because capitalism would hijack that, too (as it does all issues), and exploit it as a facade just as with green energy.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Agrarian socialism: Maoism departs from conventional European-inspired Marxism in that it focuses on the agrarian countryside rather than the urban industrial forces—this is known as agrarian socialism. Notably, Maoist parties in Peru, Nepal, and the Philippines have adopted equal stresses on urban and rural areas, depending on the country's focus on economic activity.

Maoism broke with the framework of the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev, dismissing it as "state capitalist" and "revisionist", a pejorative term among communists referring to those who fight for capitalism in the name of socialism and who depart from historical and dialectical materialism.

Although Maoism is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialisation as a prerequisite to expanding economic development and the socialist reorganisation of the countryside, with the goal being the achievement of rural industrialisation that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside.

Michael Moore is ideologically left in a legitimate sense, in contrast to progressive capitalists profiting from climate and environmental issues (i.e., no surprise the latter and their supporters criticized the film).
- - - - - - - - -

Planet of the Humans (produced by Michael Moore)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans

EXCERPT: The film examines mainstream environmental groups' partnerships with billionaires, corporations, and wealthy family foundations in the fight to save the planet. The film questions whether green energy can solve society's expanding resource depletion without reducing consumption and/or population growth, as all existing forms of energy generation require some kind of consumption of finite resources. Essentially the film questions whether renewable energy sources such as biomass energy, wind power, and solar energy are as clean and renewable as they are portrayed to be.
- - - - - - - - - -

The observations below do not pertain to the film (or were not abstracted from it).

Due to plastics and other synthetic materials ("Plastic experts say recycling is a scam"), the fossil fuel industry has to stay in business. Alternatives would simply shift to natural resource ravaging in a different area, along with manufacturing and its consequent climate effects and by-products pollution still continuing.

(1) Conservatives are alarmed about a potential change in lifestyle standards, that will arguably (after some shortage crises) only be superficial (with respect to who is running the show). I.e., capitalism and industry will still control and shepherd the green era.

(2) Progressive capitalists are making money from the transition.

(3) The left is humored that a radical change in planetary welfare and society "for the better" is taking place, that is actually just window dressing.

Billions of human consumers of manufactured goods continue, heat generation and atmospheric retention continues, burdening the landscape and sea with invasive effects of modern civilization continues, pillaging the Earth and ecological sphere for constructive substances continues, etc.

Social justice wise -- after an initial period of shake-ups and rearrangements, privileged hierarchies and the gradated power structures necessary for functioning organization will continue. Practical reality wins over fanciful idealism.

The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

The Ben Shapiro show has higher credibility factor than the IPCC  so if he (or someone like him) can create a viral "green energy is a sham" meme then whatever the IPCC say (and whatever the the truth is) is irrelevant.
I tend to go along with the figures below (IPCC 2014) but if someone disputes the accuracy .. I have no access to the original data.

(Mar 4, 2024 11:08 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]The Ben Shapiro show has higher credibility factor than the IPCC  so if he (or someone like him) can create a viral "green energy is a sham" meme then whatever the IPCC say (and whatever the the truth is) is irrelevant.
I tend to go along with the figures below (IPCC 2014) but if someone disputes the accuracy .. I have no access to the original data.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...n_IPCC.png

Does the steel and concrete needed to build renewable energy cancel out the benefits?
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/does-ste...t-benefits

INTRO: To slow and stop climate change, the world needs to build many wind turbines, solar farms, and other pieces of clean energy infrastructure. But creating them—like all massive construction projects—requires carbon-intensive materials, like steel and concrete. The carbon emissions associated with steel and concrete are truly enormous: steel creates 1.5 tons of carbon emissions for every 1 ton of the metal produced, says Donald R. Sadoway, MIT’s John F. Elliott Professor of Materials Chemistry, and concrete production accounts for a whopping 8 percent of world CO2 emissions. Clean energy technology like solar panels and batteries also require materials like copper and rare earth metals, whose mining and refinement also creates carbon emissions.

With all these emissions, is clean energy still a good thing for the climate? The short answer is yes...

The promises and propaganda sound good on paper that manufacturing, transporting, erecting and dismantling wind turbines, solar panels, etc will someday be circularly powered by the same. As well as using (almost) all recycled materials rather than raw resources. And marvelously few or no unexpected surprises and side effects.

For the time being, though, I can't quite shut out the left-wing skeptic views (and those of their centrist sympathizers) that capitalism can't cut the mustard in time, or can't be trusted.

Especially since so much of the establishment (administration, academia, journalism, entertainment industry, etc) coos about the wisdom of the left and recruits it as a guiding compass. It just seems very sacrilegious to turn wholly away from that beacon of light.

I was very heartened to see Brett Christophers in one article below waxing about China being the only major country truly staving off climate catastrophe. The new left and the old left need to bolster each other and re-establish fragile connections like that -- to celebrate their shared intellectual heritage, rather than succumbing to petty feuds over insignificant differences. 
- - - - - - - - - -

The limits of green energy under capitalism
https://truthout.org/articles/the-limits...apitalism/

Renewable energy cannot grow fast enough to avert climate catastrophe under capitalism’s growing demand for energy. [...] even a rapidly increasing percentage of green energy production is unlikely to achieve that under capitalist market forces.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Christophers review – why capitalism can’t save the planet
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/f...the-planet

Brett Christophers has made his name through a series of books that attempt to expose capitalism’s grubby secrets, such as last year’s Our Lives in Their Portfolios about the asset management industry. His aim is to make readers understand that they have been lulled into a false sense of security by an economic doctrine that promises its adherents salvation. In the same way, the Price Is Wrong rejects the orthodox reasoning that a mix of technological innovation and market wizardry will be enough to save the Earth.

The question at stake is whether the world’s climate mitigation targets can be met by efforts to “green” the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions: electricity. Christophers is pessimistic because the transition from dirty to green fuels is currently lubricated by capitalism itself. His scepticism here is not new. Many on the left say that it is in capitalism’s nature to be destructive of the environment, the climate included.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

We are taking a devastating risk with the green energy sector (i.e., relying on capitalism)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...investment

We are living through perhaps the biggest and most important policy experiment in human history, without even being aware of it: we have been relying primarily on the private sector to put an end to the climate crisis. But this experiment increasingly looks like a mistake, and one that may cost us our planetary future.

The main cause of this sluggish performance is low profitability. Bluntly stated, clean energy – developing and operating solar and windfarms, and selling the electricity they generate – simply isn’t a very attractive business. Returns are typically in the 5-8% range. Compare that with oil and gas production, where returns generally exceed 15%, and it’s little wonder clean energy stocks have been falling while oil and gas shares outperform. True, oil and gas companies receive state subsidies, but so do their clean-energy counterparts. The consequence of the sector’s abject performance is low investment in new solar and wind generating capacity.

[...] One of the sectors where stock performance is worst happens to be one the world arguably needs to be best. That sector is clean, renewable energy, or what is more widely termed “green capitalism”.

The only major country where investment in clean energy in recent years has been growing fast – let alone fast enough to potentially stave off catastrophe – is China.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...estruction

A company called Soletair Power receives wide media coverage for its claim to be “fighting climate change” by catching the carbon dioxide exhaled by office workers. But its carbon-sucking unit – an environmentally costly tower of steel and electronics – extracts just 1kg of carbon dioxide every eight hours. Humanity produces, mostly by burning fossil fuels, roughly 32bn kg of CO2 in the same period.

[...] The great political transition of the past 50 years, driven by corporate marketing, has been a shift from addressing our problems collectively to addressing them individually. In other words, it has turned us from citizens into consumers. It’s not hard to see why we have been herded down this path. As citizens, joining together to demand political change, we are powerful. As consumers, we are almost powerless.

China will never do enough to offset their own pollution. People who cuddle up to fascism tend to be overly optimistic about a totalitarian regime's benevolence toward the climate. It's not only just as self-serving as capitalism, it's actually more so, since capitalism must appeal to a consumer and communism need appeal to no one but those in power. You can play this game about everyone being duped by capitalism, but that's just communist propaganda when you're freely choosing how to spend the money you earn.