Debt Rattle August 23 2017

Energy returned om energy invested [EROI] is an important metric when it comes to fossil fuels. However it is also important when it come to renewables.

Electric cars for example use more energy than conventional cars. Modern cars convert 25-30% of the fuel in to useful energy, but fossil fuel power stations achieve 40%. However electricity is lost in transmission lines and transformers making electric cars less efficient. The only justification for electric cars is ‘saving CO2’ because most Western countries have some non-fossil fuel energy, mainly nuclear. A major issue is that if electric cars become a significant percentage of vehicles then no power grid could cope with the massive demand for power, requiring an upgrade costing tens or hundreds of billions.

Biofuels need as much or more energy to create then they provide [the exception may be oil from soya beans]. The use of biofuels was only ever a reason to subsidise farmers: sugar beet farmers in the EU and corn farmers in the US. Why any Green organisation would back them needs explanation.

Wind and solar CAN be effective, however they are often misused. Solar panels make no sense in Northern Europe but on German roofs they provide a nice subsidy to the middle class. [and elsewhere]. Wind turbines can produce useful energy but can cost a lot to connect remote locations to the grid. Also they are often misplaced so need subsidies to make them profitable, of course.

‘Renewables’ are often promoted because they ‘save CO2’ but Mankind only contributes around 3.5% of the annual CO2 production and the amount of CO2 ‘saved’ is so small it makes no difference. However ‘saving CO2’ is an excuse to transfer tens or hundreds of billions to the better off. A bit sickening when so many are being badly affected by ‘austerity’. There is never austerity on renewables! Also, you would think that if it is ‘saving the planet’ people and companies would do it on a ‘not for profit’ basis. I have never heard of such a case! Although marketed as ‘saving the planet’, as ever. it just another case of making the rich richer.

Finally I would say that if I produce a widget which produces more energy than it take to create I would never need a subsidy. As a rule of thumb : if it needs a subsidy it is NOT saving the planet!

Thank you anticlimactic. There are so many problems with renewables it’s hard to know where to start — particularly the grid, the infrastructure, and line losses. It’s also astonishingly bad as a transportation fuel, and no one calculates the huge input energy for mining and re-refining lithium, etc.

If anyone were serious about anything, they would use renewables according to their engineering parameters: they are a weak but dispersed power source and therefore cannot tolerate any transmission losses, much less the up to 20% loss here in the U.S.. Therefore any renewable, wind, solar, etc needs to be used on site in small-scale, distributed manner. This cuts off concentrated, centralized control, as power made is power used, and as no one is buying power through the money system, steadily cuts GDP even as it improves society, the environment, and quality of life. These three items are the reason it will never, ever be promoted or used, and instead is installed in the diametric opposite of its engineering logic: a concentrated, centralized, controlled, and monetized use which is a blatant wealth transfer from the poorest (rate and tax payers) to the rich (government-approved and connected, subsidized corporations and insiders. Lookin’ at you, Tesla).

Nevertheless, we can buck the trend and for modest cost, install low-level, distributed energy collectors in our own houses. …At least until none of us own our houses anymore, which seems increasingly likely.