Green Energy - Are We Up To It?
Have we got it figured how to convert our systems to green energy?
I have been thinking over the past few days - and some would suggest that may be dangerous. But, do we have it figured out how to convert to green energy?
What is Green Energy?
That is all the “good stuff” we hear government, the environmentalists, scientists, and just about anyone we care to want to listen to, talk about the energy that is going to save us from the impacts of climate change and global warming. The categories are wind, solar, hydro electric, and the debate goes on about hydrogen, which comes in 3 colours, grey, blue and green.
Could, Should, Might
These are the three words I look for in any article or discussion paper regarding environmental issues:
Could - It might happen but I am not saying it will happen.
Should - on the scale of probability, a little more definitive but still not certain.
Might - Far off into never-never land. Not a hope it will happen, bu nice to talk about.
Why do researchers, writers and promulgators of environmental doom use these terms? Because they do not want to be caught with their pants down, saying it will happen, when they do not know (my theory anyway).
The World Economic Forum Says We “Could” Do It
They published a collection of 47 peer-reviewed research papers by 91 authors who analysed different scenarios to examine whether individual countries or entire regions could get by solely relying on renewables.1 There it is. "Could get by." I am not arguing whether it could or cannot, but even the World Economic Forum is hedging their bet.
Here is Why They Hedge
Building a North American super grid. Has anyone an idea what a super grid is? I postulate that it is a way for the World Economic Forum to “hide” what is really required.
In practical terms, over the past 100 years or so, our electrical grid has grown up by meandering and “connecting the dots.” The transmission lines would go from “A” to “B” and a new nuclear plant, hydro electric facility, and others would be connected.
Now, that will not be so easy; Do folks appreciate “NIMBY?” The transmission lines installed 100 years ago, even 50 years ago were installed under a completely different public regime. Today, “you are not putting that nuclear plant near my back yard, or a huge and noisy wind farm anywhere near me? And, what about the animals, the land conversion, the loss of habitat. If at all possible to obtain environmental and social approval, it will take years.
Some may suggest I am an old, negative person. Yea, I am getting up there in years, but I can remember, and have experienced things that anyone under 30 years old has probably never had to think about.
Never before have we reached a state of convenience where someone will make us a meal, pop it in a car, drive on that oil-laden paved road, with oil paint lines - or for the few, hop on their electric bike with lots of parts made from oil - and have the food delivered to us piping hot.2 For most, this is now second nature and we take it as for granted as the oxygen we breath.
We do not think of the complexities that are part of the Internet for ordering, the order, delivery, payment and getting the food hot. And with the electricity grid, we also do not give it much thought. It is always there - except when we might have the minor inconvenience of a storm that knocks the power out - and most think the electrical grid will always be there.
So, we have two problems that I see:
The “experts” are very crafty at using the words “could, should, might, to not having to tell us the truth, but not ling to us, and;
The population is divided into three camps. The first is passionate about getting rid of oil. The second is passionate about keeping oil. The third is just too busy trying to have a life to get too bogged down in the detail of all of this.
The agenda has been hijacked by the first group and our politicians go along with it to get their positive 30-second sound bite. If one looks at the disasters we have in our country at the moment - debt, inflation, health crisis political moral values so low the politicians are tripping over it (sorry, just had to put that in, which I read somewhere) - excellent fodder for the 30-seconds and for deflecting us away from the other very important issues.
Don’t get me wrong; I deeply care about the environment, and the impacts of climate change and global warming. I also care and believe it is absolutely critical for us to be exposed to truth and consequence.
Truth and Consequence?
That is all we need to expect. That we are provided with the information to better understand the impacts of spending $billions on climate change issues and what is the probability we are going to hit the targets for 2030 and 2050?
Think of the risk for the politicians. By 2030 they will have spent our $billions, we will still be fighting about health care and most of them will be off in exotic places, living the good pensioned life, like the Bahamas. They largely will not be around to atone for their sins.
Electric-vehicle penetration is the biggest driver of oil demand declines in the energy transition. However, emerging supply bottlenecks for key battery materials could be an unexpected barrier.3 Does this make us comfortable that we are up to it?
Has anyone thought of how long it takes to get a new mine up and running? Years with finding it, financing, environmental assessments, consultations - with some folks who will argue strenuously that no mine is worth it, add construction and finally, after many years, possibly some production. Does that make us comfortable that we are up to it?
And if you do not want to cringe, do not think about China and India. China is projected to add about 425 million new cars by 2030 and India is in the 300 million range. There are also other countries that are experiencing higher standards of living, where the population is looking for the same experience with cars that we have on this side of the pond. This is only going to make matters more challenging. Are we up to it?
Electric Grid - The Funnel
How many of us give much, or any thought to how electricity gets from the hydro damn to our home? For me, not much, and I would hazard a guess, not many people give it much thought. The electric grid that has developed over the past 100 years has become pretty efficient and reliable at that.
It is, what I call a “funnel”. The big end collects the electricity at the damn; the flow goes downhill to the narrowed part, there are all sorts of complexities in converting the power for us to 120 V and have it delivered to our home.
The system functions largely because of computerisation. Just look at the problems and $millions the government has spent trying to get the Phoenix Payroll system working, without success. What is going to happen when we need new software, hardware and programming for a new super power grid, all being hooked together from 1,000’s of locations? Are we up to it? How can we be? The experts do not even talk to us about it.
And, just like a funnel being used for filling a jug of water, the funnel will only take so much. It is the same with our electrical grid and the proof, the brown-outs already experienced in California from people trying to get too much electricity from the grid. Does this notice on the Public Utilities Commission Website for California4 give anyone confidence that we are up to it?
“(We) may shut off electric power, referred to as “de- energisation” or Public Safety Power Shut-offs, to protect public safety under California law.”
Also, the electric grid is designed to flow in one direction. From the top of the funnel to the bottom. Has anyone tried to pour water through a funnel in the opposite direction? It does not work very well and the electrical grid is the same. Does that sound like we are up to it with what we have got?
Some “Sound Good” Statements
Previewing a few articles, I found the following “feel good” statement. Scanning quickly as most people do, the statement probably elicits “feel good” with most people. Our minds go to the place where “all is good, the problem is solved and we can get on with our lives.”
Based on population, energy demand, area and electricity grid structure, could (significantly reduce storage requirements and overall cost of the energy system, they found.
Does this give anyone confidence? There is that word “could” again and the cost has the same chance, or more to rise. To re-engineer the electrical grid is going to take, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars. No one talks about the impacts of that elephant in the room.
Conclusion
Many of the people “leading” the climate change battle, are desperate to put a positive spin on all that they do. They want us to believe all is just fine and switching to green options while eliminating fossil fuels is all between us and glory or alternatively, purgatory.
The words, “could,” “should” and “might” are replete in everything we hear. They largely elicit us feeling good and we then get on with our lives. Many targets have been set for 2030 and 2050 but missing is the “truth and consequence” on just how we are going to get there. In the meantime, the politicians who used this glorious opportunity to get their 30 second sound bite will be living off their pensions in some exotic place, like the Bahamas, far from having to atone for their sins.
That is life, but for part of my life, I am going to remain vigilant to the expert use of “could” “should” and “might".”
World Economic Forum (28 February, 2020). Renewable energy could power the world by 2050. Here’s what that future might look like. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/renewable-energy-future-carbon-emissions/ (Accessed 16 Dec. 2022)
Terry Etam (2019). The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity - Clearing the Air Before Cleaning the Air. ISBN 978-1-5255-4025. (Accessed 16 Dec. 20220
McKinsey & Co. (5 Dec. 2022). Could supply-chain issues derail the energy transition?https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/could-supply-chain-issues-derail-the-energy-transition?cid=eml-web (Accessed 16 Dec. 2022)