7 thoughts on “Renewable Energy”

  2. This sort of thing illustrates a kind of fatuous self-importance that government seems to inspire. Nothing will happen, this viewpoint goes, unless government provides “leadership”.

    Of course this is bullshit. Lots of things happen without, or even with contrary, government “leadership”. Governments often do development for reasons of politics or simply to avoid admission of error. There can be R&D that pays off, but it’s almost by accident when it does so.

    I’ll further add that research is a kind of global altruism. It’s published and available to anyone, anywhere. Unless there is some sort of strong local advantage to being near the researchers, it would be economically optimal to slash research and just use that done elsewhere in the world. Presumably those whining about renewable cuts aren’t anti-globalism types; what’s wrong with buying PV modules from China and wind turbines from Europe?

    I get the feeling R&D acts like a kind of social signaling from politicians to voters. It’s not that’s it’s actually good for the voters, but it allows the politicians to pretend they are doing something. It has the advantage of delivering its supposed benefits decades in the future.

  3. I loved the link about “Oil has a Tesla Problem.” As long as nuclear power is blocked by the “environmentalists,” the only possible source of electricity to recharge Tesla cars will be from fossil-fueled power plants. If the demand is large enough, and demand for gasoline indeed goes down, the oil supply will go into oil-fired power plants (which have far fewer environmental problems than coal-fired plants). The irony is that MORE oil will be consumed in this manner to power Tesla automobiles than gasoline powered cars because of the insertion of a number of new loss points between the oil flame and the mechanical power of the tire on the road.

    1. the only possible source of electricity to recharge Tesla cars will be from fossil-fueled power plants

      How did you reach this incorrect conclusion?

      BTW, Musk just tweeted:

      “All Superchargers are being converted to solar/battery power. Over time, almost all will disconnect from the electricity grid.”

      1. “How did you reach this incorrect conclusion?”

        By looking up actual data, and doing simple arithmetic. The U.S. used a little over 143 billion gallons of gasoline for cars in 2016. In the same year, the total amount of solar energy produced in the US was 38.5 TW-hr. Combustion of 143 billion gallons of gasoline yields 5.3 PW-hr of energy, which translates to roughly 0.8 PW-hr of usable energy to propel a car.

        So you tell me, Einstein: How is it that solar energy can replace gasoline when we have (despite the gigantic subsidies) less than 5% of the solar capacity demonstrated today of the demonstrated energy it takes to run our automotive fleet?

        1. You are making the absurd assumption that we are near some fundamental upper limit to how much solar energy we can produce. We are obviously not.

          To answer your question: solar energy can replace gasoline by building more solar collectors (and batteries).

          1. These “absurd assumptions” are natural questions which have been researched to death, and not by me.

            Let’s go about this the right way. You show us how much it would cost to produce enough solar generation and storage capacity to replace gasoline as an automotive energy supply. Don’t just assume that it can be done. Show that it can be done. Otherwise you’re virtue signaling is worth as much as the handful of electrons that transmitted it.

Comments are closed.