Should the Phoenix Arise; the Bateman Equation and Wind Energy.
I'm very depressed; I'm sure I will not live long enough to see a Phoenix rise from this political, unprecedented disaster in which my people showed themselves unworthy of decency. I am extremely disgusted by the American People as a whole, and worry as to whether this is 1933 in Berlin all over again.
All day I've been trying to think about something else, so here it is:
I would have thought, with all the trillions thrown at it, the wind industry would have added at least one Exajoule of Energy but according to the EIA's World Energy Outlook, it remained constant from 2022 to 2023. It has always been a trivial, if expensive, form of reactionary energy despite the myth that it's "cheap," a lie advanced by ignoring the required internal and external costs of redundancy, a dishonest practice if ever there was one. It produced 8 Exajoules in 2022; and 8 Exajoules again in 2023.
To wit:
World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296. (Primary Energy Excerpt)
At least in round numbers, the wind energy output grew, in "percent talk," zero percent.
Of course people are tearing the shit out of wilderness to make wind industrial parks, and now are trashing the continental shelf to do the same, so it kind of surprised me. One possibility is that the inability of so called "renewable energy" to do anything at all to address extreme global warming, has changed the weather so as to diminish the winds, but I'm not sure I'd believe that. Another is an increasing wake effect, known to diminish winds in wind industrial parks, so that each turbine produces even less energy than an isolated turbine might.
However, I wondered to myself, while trying to think of something other than an ignorant pig heading to the White House to destroy this country, whether another effect is taking place, secular equilibrium.
I have repeatedly noted, using data from the Danish Energy Agency's Master Register of Wind Turbines, which is no longer maintained there, probably because it makes the industry look like shit (which it is), that wind turbines have a short life time, under 18 years on average.
The Growth Rate of the Danish Wind Industry As Compared to the New Finnish EPR Nuclear Reactor.
With the trillions of dollars spent on wind energy has left lots of them littering the planet. The more there are, the more that will be available to fail.
In nuclear engineering, an important equation to understand is the Bateman Equation:
It can be shown that the solutions of this equation involve exponential terms, particularly in the case involving simplification to give the radioactive decay law, which is buried in the Bateman equation above.
In the Bateman Equation shown the first term after the summation refers to the fission yield of a particular nuclide Ni, it creates a nuclide, and thus works to increase its concentration. It's linear. However the decay term is exponential; the more of a nuclide there is, the more of it will decay. The result is, that given any power level for nuclear reactors, there will be a point at which the radioactive fission products will be decaying at the rate formed. (This is actually asymptotic, but for practical purposes achieved on a macroscopic scale.) Where this equilibrium lies, is a function of the half-life; the shorter the half-life for any nuclide, the less will be available for use. Short-lived nuclides reach secular equilibrium while still in the reactor, longer lived nuclides can survive long enough to be isolated for use.
And this is, I think, on reflection, why the growth of the wind industry has stopped; secular equilibrium is being achieved. We can no longer afford to build them as fast as they fail, because as so many of them now litter the planet, the numbers of those failing is nearly equal to the capacity to build new ones.
It seems reasonable, but there are other factors for sure, but it's an interesting way to look at it, and probably of some relevance.
It's possible one may not like this observation, which, so far as the growth of wind energy output, zero percent from 2022 to 2023, is nonetheless real. If however, one is in the class of not liking this real data, as I'm raw, and hurting for my country, I would appreciate it if you don't post videos put out by the so called "renewable energy"/battery/hydrogen cults. I've had enough of cults for now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The facts have changed. Your mind has not.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-system-cost-benchmarks
Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2024, 06:37 AM - Edit history (3)
World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A1a: World energy supply Page 296. (Truncated to show primary energy only, and excluding the part where hydrogen consumes more energy than it provides.)
It's funny to hear antinukes complain that it takes too long to build nuclear plants, when their asinine solar and wind trillion dollar crap, in an atmosphere of mindless cheering, has never, not once, produced as much energy as nuclear energy does reliably in an atmosphere of mindless vituperation, and has been doing consistently for decades, not needing to fire up gas and coal plants every fucking day when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing.
Apparently for antinukes 8 + 8 is greater than 30. One sees these things and one doesn't really want to believe it.
And then, they want to call out "myths." It's Orwellian, if not obscene.
It is not merely a myth, it's a fucking illiterate lie actually, to insist that the unit of energy is the Watt, particularly for systems that are unreliable in the extreme, as opposed to the Joule. Of course, one can only sell the bullshit about what is growing fast, if one claims that solar cells and wind cells operate at full power 24/7, 365 days a year, as many nuclear plants around the world have done, particularly in the United States.
And of course, we note that the trillion dollar solar industry between 2022 and 2023 grew by 2 Exajoules, from 6 Exajoules to 8 Exajoules, slower than coal, which grew by 3 Exajoules, from 172 Exajoules to 175 Exajoules.
Just as it is a mathematical truism that 8 + 8 is not equal to 30; it is also true that 175-172 = 3 is greater than 8-6 = 2. In percent talk in the period between 2022 and 2023, the use of coal grew 150% faster than the solar junk, all of which will be landfill in 25 years or less, not that antinukes give a flying fuck about coal.
Thank you German antinukes. Way to go!!!
But here are the important numbers, the numbers about which clearly solar and wind cults couldn't care less:
Week beginning on October 27, 2024: 423.15 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 397.57 ppm
Last updated: November 08, 2024
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Excuse me if I'm uninterested in delusional propaganda videos that only serve the coal, gas, and oil industries which aren't going anywhere because this reactionary solar and wind shit hasn't done a damned fucking thing to address fossil fuel consumption. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
And let's be clear, it is reactionary: Humanity abandoned dependence on the weather for energy in the 19th century for a reason, the chief one being something antinukes can't understand, reliability. People don't disconnect their refrigerators, surgical suites don't turn off the lights during periods of Dunkelflaute that can last for months at a time. They (I'm looking at you, Germany) burn coal and gas to keep the lights on.
As for me, I have serious things to do other than to watch tripe videos. I really, really, really don't take recommendations from people who wish to represent that 8 + 8 is larger than 30. I'd be embarrassed to do so.
The fucking planet is burning and as it does, around the world, the lie has become more valuable than the ability to recognize very, very, very simple truths, for example that 8 + 8 does not equal or exceed 30.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2024, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
I have previously truncated my reproduction the table - to accommodate the limits of my graphics software - to delineate how primary energy is generated on this planet, but did not include the part involved in thermodynamically degraded electricity.
Let me work with the graphics to show the full table, which includes information about energy losses for the big "renewables will save us" efforts to push the destruction of rain forests for palm oil now running here, as well as the soothsaying predicted energy losses to make the fossil fuel generated hydrogen to pretend it's made from so called "renewable energy."
There now, it now includes the part of the table where one can discern that 8EJ + 8EJ (solar + wind) still doesn't equal 30 EJ (nuclear) even after trillions of dollars squandered to trash wilderness for so called "renewable energy."
Let's see, what it says about primary energy sources for producing thermodynamically degraded electricity, using real numbers as opposed to "percent talk."
8+8 still doesn't equal 30, nor does 8+8 equal the 115 EJ of coal energy to generate electricity, nor does 8+8 equal the 57 EJ of natural gas used to generate electricity. 8+8 does, however, slightly exceed the 15 EJ generated by renewable hydroelectricity, but with all the droughts underway because so called "renewable energy" did nothing at all to slow extreme global heating, and because we're fresh out of major rivers to destroy, there seems to be a limit on what hydroelectricity will produce. The 10 EJ of electricity produced by burning biofuels is offset by the 6 EJ of energy losses associated with producing biofuels.
As for IEA soothsaying about "by 2030," I note that I have every fucking volume of the WEO put out in the 21st century. The data is worthy of consideration, soothsaying not so much. I'm an old man. I've lived through "by 1990," "by 2000," "by 2010," and most recently "by 2020" soothsaying about the outbreak of the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana.
Is it here yet?
Well, that depends entirely on one's sense of reality.
Something called "reality:"
Week beginning on November 03, 2024: 423.28 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.38 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.91 ppm
Last updated: November 09, 2024
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
By the way, my State, New Jersey, is breaking into flames now, along with places all over the world. I'm sure our faith based "renewables will save us" crowd is very, very, very pleased with themselves.
Maybe it's fear of reality that's driving the worldwide outbreak of fascism, since "renewables will save us" fantasies didn't cut it, did they?
Have a nice evening.
Solar and wind to lead growth of U.S. power generation for the next two years
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), January 2024
In our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast that wind and solar energy will lead growth in U.S. power generation for the next two years. As a result of new solar projects coming on line this year, we forecast that U.S. solar power generation will grow 75% from 163 billion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2023 to 286 billion kWh in 2025. We expect that wind power generation will grow 11% from 430 billion kWh in 2023 to 476 billion kWh in 2025.
In 2023, the U.S. electric power sector produced 4,017 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electric power. Renewable sources—wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal—accounted for 22% of generation, or 874 billion kWh, last year. Annual renewable power generation surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in 2021 and coal generation for the first time in 2022.
In contrast to growing generation from renewables, we forecast that coal power generation will decline 18% from 665 billion kWh in 2023 to 548 billion kWh in 2025. We forecast natural gas will continue to be the largest source of U.S. electricity generation, with about 1,700 billion kWh of annual generation in 2024 and 2025, similar to last year. We expect nuclear power generation will stay relatively flat, rising from 776 billion kWh in 2023 to 797 billion kWh in 2025.
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), January 2024
New installations of generating capacity support the increase in our renewable generation forecast. Wind and solar developers often bring their projects on line at the end of the calendar year. So, the new capacity tends to affect generation growth trends for the following year. Solar is the fastest-growing renewable source because of the larger capacity additions and favorable tax credits policies. Planned solar projects increase solar capacity operated by the electric power sector 38% from 95 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2023 to 131 GW by the end of 2024. We expect wind capacity to stay relatively flat at 156 GW by the end of 2024, compared with 149 GW in December 2023.
If your thinking does not agree with reality, it’s time to adjust your thinking.
And of course, it's worth noting that as usual, our antinukes responsible for the extreme global heating now before us, have no interest in whether their expensive and useless toys produce more energy than fossil fuels, since they obviously they couldn't care less about fossil fuels.
It's always "more than nuclear," because the reality is that antinukes, who have agitated against nuclear energy for decades while not giving a fuck about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere from fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, are quite literally, now that the planet is burning, arsonists complaining about forest fires.
The whole fucking planet is on fire, and still we hear this shit, day in and day out, all night long (while the solar shit is doing nothing). It never stops while the planet burns. It's Nero playing his fiddle loudly all over the dying Earth.
I don't expect that posting anything about capacity utilization can reach these tiresome fantasies that have been flying around for the entire 21st century while the planet burns, but a pile of solar junk that will be electronic waste in 25 years almost never reaches the advertised peak power. A 1000 Megawatt solar industrial park covering thousands of acres that operates at 25% capacity utilization overall, and requires back up by fossil fuels every night, is not equivalent to a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant on a few acres that can run, without refueling, for years at a time, day and night, irrespective of rain, wind and snow, at 100% capacity utilization, decade upon decade upon decade upon decade. For 75% percent of the time, on average, the solar garbage needs to be backed up by dangerous fossil fuels, a fact about which, again, antinukes couldn't care less. While average continuous power of solar crap is less than 25% of the average continuous power of a nuclear plant, the real issue is not the average, it is the requirement for redundancy which means fossil fuels.
Of course, antinukes couldn't care less about fossil fuels. They never have; they never will. The only reliability in which they are interested is reliably attacking the last best hope of the human race, nuclear energy.
This tortured inability to understand basic units of science the difference between the Joule and the Watt, the latter derived from the first by inclusion by division in units of time - the EIA should know better, as these tables enforce, rather than reduce ignorance - as this misinformation has led us to an ignorant public focused on spin and, as always, unable to grasp reality, is part of the reason behind the generation of extreme global heating we now experience.
The charts above do not, make 8 + 8 greater than 30 in units of energy, Exajoules, not peak power (which renewable energy rarely ever produces) as in the table to which I keep referring, and fails to induce even a modicum of education, not that I expect anyone handing out this tiresome bullshit.
World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.
It won't sink in, of course, but nonetheless, a fact is a fact and is not subject to change by religious faith.
I fully recognize, again, that "renewables will save us" types here don't give a rat's ass about the growing use of fossil fuels, so I'll not bother to point out that 8 EJ + 8 EJ does not even remotely approach the three digit numbers for each of the dangerous fossil fuels listed in the table. The "renewables will save us" crowd remain clearly disinterested entirely in the most tragic issue before humanity, extreme global heating generated by dangerous fossil fuel waste. They have always been interested in attacking the only form of reliable, scalable, extremely low carbon form of energy there is, nuclear energy.
They thus remain, as always, willing to openly express their contempt for the collapse of the planetary atmosphere. As such, I personally find them pernicious and responsible for the tragedy before all of humanity but anything that can be done now to address the results of this appalling ignorance, hardly limited to the inability to distinguish between the units the Watt and the Joule, will surely be too little, too late.
History will not forgive us, nor should it.
Once again, understanding that apologists for solar and wind are very, very, very, very bad with numbers, we are burning more dangerous fossil fuels than ever before:
World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.
This bullshit delusional slogan about there being an "energy transition" has been running at least since 2010.
In 2010, we were burning dangerous natural gas to produce 115 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous natural gas to produce 145 EJ of energy.
In 2010, we were burning dangerous petroleum to produce 173 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous petroleum to produce 192 EJ of energy.
In 2010, we were burning dangerous coal to produce 153 EJ of energy. In 2023 we were burning dangerous coal to produce 175 EJ of energy.
If there's an "energy transition" it's a transition from appalling to disastrous.
Things are getting worse, faster, and stupid slogans and cheap advertising videos hyping those slogans will not change that fact:
The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update (November).
It's all soothsaying bullshit with no connection to the reality, typical of the type, delusional and quite toxic.
No amount of information can change their faith based rhetoric or their dogma. They are as realistic as people waiting for the return of Jesus.
The German coal consuming antinuke hellhole for 2023:
Electricity Map
Germany has decided to kill people and the planet with coal waste in order to endorse a pernicious antinuke fantasy.
As of this writing, noon EST (US) 11/09/24, German carbon intensity is 532 grams of CO2 per kwh compared France's 63 grams of CO2 per kwh.
Germany's disgusting carbon intensity at this moment would be higher, but they are importing 3.3 GW of power from nuclear powered France, and 495 MW from nuclear powered Sweden.
Their wind garbage is operating as of this moment at 3.22% capacity utilization, producing less power (2.2 GW) than they are importing from France, and way less power than they are generating from coal (18.6 GW).
As I pointed out in the OP, the fucking wind garbage on this planet is falling apart as fast as it can be built.
Congrats to the world of soothsaying antinukes. I'm sure they're very proud of themselves:
Week beginning on November 03, 2024: 423.28 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 419.38 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.91 ppm
Last updated: November 09, 2024
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Renewables take the lead in power generation in 2023
…
Renewables made up 44.7% of EU electricity production
In 2023, renewable energy was the leading source of electricity in the EU, accounting for 44.7% of all electricity production. Renewables generated 1.21 million Gigawatt-hour (GWh), marking an increase of 12.4% compared with 2022.
Conversely, electricity generated from fossil fuels decreased by 19.7% compared with the previous year, contributing 0.88 million GWh, or 32.5% of the total electricity production.
Nuclear plants produced 0.62 million GWh or 22.8% the EU energy production, reflecting a 1.2% increase in production in 2023.
Source datasets: nrg_ind_pehcf and nrg_ind_pehnf
When your thinking is at odds with reality, that’s not reality’s problem.
Per-capita CO2 emissions
Per-capita energy-related CO2 emissions tend to be higher in more economically-developed countries, but can also vary greatly depending on the structure of the economy and the energy system. For example, per-capita emissions will be higher in countries that rely more on carbon-intensive modes of transportation (like driving and flying), have a higher share of energy-intensive industries (like steel or chemicals) or depend heavily on fossil fuels for power generation.
…
When your beliefs conflict with reality, that’s not reality’s fault.
On the other hand, after funding Putin's war with their fossil fuel purchases because they're going "green," it's entirely possible that the per capita consumption is going down because they're shutting plants because of high energy prices owing to stupidity.
Big adjustment! Basf quietly closed 11 factories in Germany and transferred to China for plant investment! (2024)
I hear a lot of tortured rhetoric handed out attempting to justify burning fossil fuels, but this one is highly amusing.
As of this writing, 7:23P EST (US) 11/09/2024, German electricity has a carbon intensity of 594 grams CO2/kWh; in "percent talk," just about 1000% higher than France's 59 grams CO2/kWh.
One way to reduce carbon emissions is to fire people from their jobs and close the plants where they work. It's called "exporting pollution."
It's a widely used shell game.
