Forbes: Renewable Energy Is A Scam

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#149018efea2b


Der Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany “€3.4 trillion ($3.8 trillion),” or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025, to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.

Between 2000 and 2019, Germany grew renewables from 7% to 35% of its electricity. And as much of Germany's renewable electricity comes from biomass, which scientists view as polluting and environmentally degrading, as from solar.

Of the 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines needed, only 8% have been built, while large-scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the reporters note of a much-hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is below 40%... No viable business model can be developed from this.”

Meanwhile, the 20-year subsidies granted to wind, solar, and biogas since 2000 will start coming to an end next year. “The wind power boom is over,” Der Spiegel concludes.

All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?

All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels? Originally Posted by gnadfly

I had read a great article on this a couple years back. If I can find it again I'll post the link.

But in a nutshell, the premise of that article was basically that the renewables were a perfect start for developing nations specifically because they were not already considered a "modern civilization".

Think about it, creating a small standalone power grid for an isolated village using wind or solar gets them a level of independence and power/technology they don't currently have, then as the national "grid" develops, these get integrated.

In the instance of modern countries, it's trying to backfill that technology into the already established grids.

The mistake in the Forbes article here is that the approach to Kenya should probably not match Germany with one big wind farm that would power large sections of the country and integrate to the current grid. Kenya has no real current "grid".

A different approach could allow the developing nations to in essence "leapfrog" in their usage of renewables, however, they will still lag behind in overall infrastructure grid technology.

I'm all for renewable energy sources and implementing where they make sense and the third world seems prime as a start.

.... the renewables were a perfect start for developing nations ...... Originally Posted by eccielover

... what are "they" going to "develop" with "renewables"?

... what are "they" going to "develop" with "renewables"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

A system of initially distributed and somewhat independent energy systems that can eventually become a distributed national energy grid.

Who says you can’t learn something important from a hooker board. I’d read something similar about cell phones in African countries. They leapfrogged fixed lines, and were using their mobile phones to pay bills when we were still mailing checks. When your postal service sucks that’s a big deal

A system of initially distributed and somewhat independent energy systems that can eventually become a distributed national energy grid. Originally Posted by eccielover

The point of the article was renewable energy isn't economically scalable.

Who says you can’t learn something important from a hooker board. I’d read something similar about cell phones in African countries. They leapfrogged fixed lines, and were using their mobile phones to pay bills when we were still mailing checks. When your postal service sucks that’s a big deal Originally Posted by Tiny

One needs to read those articles with a degree of skepticism. Do I believe they "leap frogged" land lines and tradition postal services? No. Did some consultant or some cell phone tower salesman use this an example to sell their product? Yes.

Scam, so what's your point, Solar as a example you would need a farm the size of Texas to power Dallas ( Not workable at this time) Great for space ships but not much else ,,,

The germans would be better off adding and updating their nuclear power industry rather than removing it entirely. A good solution is a mix of Nuclear, Solar and Wind power.

The point of the article was renewable energy isn't economically scalable.

One needs to read those articles with a degree of skepticism. Do I believe they "leap frogged" land lines and tradition postal services? No. Did some consultant or some cell phone tower salesman use this an example to sell their product? Yes. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I know where you're coming from gnadfly. I used to believe like you. Then I read eccielover's post, and I saw the light.

Several years ago an oilman and I had an argument with a consultant for a philanthropy. There was a huge amount of undeveloped natural gas in a field offshore of Mozambique or some other east African country. The oilman and I believed it would be great if the gas could be developed and used locally. It could be used for power generation, chemical plants, etc., and greatly improve the lot of the people. The consultant said that's not the way to go, Africans need to focus on renewables. At the time I thought the consultant was nuts. Now I believe he was just stupid. He shouldn't have been arguing with the oilman who was thinking about giving him some work.

There's a place for both. You use the natural gas in coastal cities. Inland, where you have many villages without electricity and some with diesel generators, you use renewables. They're probably a much cheaper way to go.

The Forbes article may well be right. The World Bank has financed many boondoggles in Africa, where their money ended up in the local rulers' Swiss Bank accounts. And putting in renewables to replace existing generation capacity in, say, Nairobi (a large city in Kenya) probably isn't a good use of money.

Scam, so what's your point, Solar as a example you would need a farm the size of Texas to power Dallas ( Not workable at this time) Great for space ships but not much else ,,, Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Nobody here is arguing with that, yet. (Where's Agrarian?) Using the cost estimate in gnadfly's article, $3.8 trillion to use renewables to power Germany, we might be looking at around $20 trillion to do the same thing in the USA, based on the size of our economies. That's a huge amount of money, comparable to our GDP or national debt.

I once services scientific instrumentation at many places including power generating facilities.
One needs a mix of power sources because of fluctuating demand. Also one needs a robust enough power grid to power when the wind is not blowing.


Nuclear is very slow to respond to changes in demand the only other power source is natural gas and coal. I suppose methane from biomass might be flexible enough.


The Germans shut down all of the eastern zone nuke plants and may have shut (or will) shut down their nuke plants as well.

When they get the breakthrough in fusion (thermonuclear) energy research, they have come a long way in their research.
This will power the world for eternity...this energy is non-exhaustible. The amount of energy created to the amount of hydrogen used is absolutely incredible.
The talk about solar, this is the byproduct of fusion...photons(light rays) this energy is minuscule in comparison to the fusion reaction. The end product is helium not the nuclear waste in fission (nuclear power plants) that has to be disposed of. Fusion energy blows fission energy away.
The people that make this breakthrough are going to make Jeff Bezos fortune look small. This energy will power the world forever...inexhaustible...hydr ogen is the most abundant element in the universe by far.

I had read a great article on this a couple years back. If I can find it again I'll post the link.

But in a nutshell, the premise of that article was basically that the renewables were a perfect start for developing nations specifically because they were not already considered a "modern civilization".

Think about it, creating a small standalone power grid for an isolated village using wind or solar gets them a level of independence and power/technology they don't currently have, then as the national "grid" develops, these get integrated.

In the instance of modern countries, it's trying to backfill that technology into the already established grids.

The mistake in the Forbes article here is that the approach to Kenya should probably not match Germany with one big wind farm that would power large sections of the country and integrate to the current grid. Kenya has no real current "grid".

A different approach could allow the developing nations to in essence "leapfrog" in their usage of renewables, however, they will still lag behind in overall infrastructure grid technology.

I'm all for renewable energy sources and implementing where they make sense and the third world seems prime as a start. Originally Posted by eccielover

I have proposed such a thing to a biggish wiggish guy in central Africa just yesterday. I worked through the logistics, construction, cost effectiveness, and energy balance(does it do more good than not), and it clearly works out. More importantly, it works out as a means to provide critical infrastructure that is sustainable, useful, and wanted. Imagine that.

It is funny, because the Eurofascist install all kinds of high technology shit down there that just isn't supportable, and fundamentally useless. Inevitably, the shit gets turned off because it isn't generally useful, and in the end, was installed to put money in some african swindler's pockets.

Life is interesting.

... what are "they" going to "develop" with "renewables"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

They are going to develop a system that can be supported by Western politicians to signal their virtue while spending taxpayer money.

If Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover would spend their own money on it and electricity was provided to remote villages via solar then I would consider it a useful idea.

The germans would be better off adding and updating their nuclear power industry rather than removing it entirely. A good solution is a mix of Nuclear, Solar and Wind power. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Haven't you heard? Nuclear is "dirty." Just like NatG is "dirty". Then someone proclaimed them "clean", not "green." Ecofacism political correctness. Nobody except biomass vendors want biomass.

Solar and Wind just aren't scalable. If you live in the Outback, it may be a godsend...until thousands of people try to hook up to it.

When they get the breakthrough in fusion (thermonuclear) energy research, they have come a long way in their research.
..... Originally Posted by bb1961

We've been waiting for 50+ years. My wife wants the A/C turned down now.

...

It is funny, because the Eurofascist install all kinds of high technology shit down there that just isn't supportable, and fundamentally useless. Inevitably, the shit gets turned off because it isn't generally useful, and in the end, was installed to put money in some african swindler's pockets.
Originally Posted by kehaar

Correct. I worked for an oil company that literally spent billions on "nonoil" energy projects. It was the kiss of death for the career of any executive that headed them up. Then they declared victory and sold the project results for a few million. Stockholders were outraged.

Can't find the link but there's a TED talk where a guy says many of these "sustainable, green" energy sources such as ocean power aren't viable. The reasons why they aren't viable is similar to reasons why perpetual energy contraptions fail.