November 27th, 2024

Wind and solar power alone can’t provide energy security


By Lethbridge Herald on April 8, 2023.

Editor:

Re: World needs to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

James Byrne in his speech to SACPA (March 24 Herald) stated renewable energy, wind turbines, solar panes, big grid batteries will replace fossil fuel usage in Alberta.

It has been demonstrated that wind, solar and battery back-up cannot be relied on to provided reliable power without base load fossil fuels or nuclear. One only needs to look at Europe this past winter as many nations have had to rely on coal or liquid natural gas when renewables up short in providing the necessary electrical generation. Californians, who are more reliant on renewables that anywhere in North America, also pay the highest electoral rates on the continent, as well.

During the winter months in Alberta, wind and solar generate minimal amounts of power to the electrical grid. As an example, on Dec. 20, 2022, with the province under an extreme cold alert, at 2:25 p.m. wind and solar were contributing a mere 54 megawatts of an installed solar and wind capacity of 4,756 megawatts. Big grid battery back-up, based on existing technology, cannot realistically fill in when renewables fail.

Battery back-up is exceedingly expensive and reasonable expectations of length of operation are likely to be measured in minutes rather than hours or days. In the dead of winter without fossil fuels, Albertans can look forward to freezing in the dark.

The Alberta Energy Operator puts out grid generation information including amount of current generation and source of energy that can be viewed on Twitter @ReliableAB.

Expectations that wind and solar will provide energy security and the necessary power to run modern industrial economy currently remain unrealistic.

Warren Lyckman

Lethbridge

Share this story:

11
-10
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
buckwheat

It’s pipe dream being spewed by supposedly in the know. I.e. Byrne

Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since 22% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that 22% of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”
 Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
 There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
 Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
 
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
 In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
 But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs. 
 A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
 It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”
 Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”
 I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
 The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
 Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
 There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.  
” Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.

old school

Going green should be a choice. All green energy to live and heat your home and power your car or something reliable and consistant. I choose the latter. The greenery would never agree . Dead in a year would be the result.

JimO

Agreed buck. As I have mentioned in the past and will do so again, oil will alway be needed for things like road construction. My stepson owns and operates a paving company and says they go through a lot of oil for road work. City streets, highways and other forms of paving need this oil to new and existing work and unless people prefer to drive on dirt then maybe they need to re evaluate their thinking. Concrete roads are not clean by no means in comparison material.

lumpy

“Silicon panels cannot be recycled.”
Not true, in fact they are up to 90% recyclable.
Buckwheat cut and pasted this FALSE narrative from some wacko site.
Forbid he would ever use his brain and actually fact check

Last edited 1 year ago by lumpy
buckwheat

Prove that it’s 90% false. When you start throwing insults you become just another liberal losing an argument by attacking the messenger. I recognize a green investor when I see one.

Last edited 1 year ago by buckwheat
McKnight

https://renewablesassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Recycling-Solar-Panels-English-Web.pdf
Solar panels are 90% recyclable apparently Buck.
So ya. You might want to dig a little beyond whatever information source you are using.
And it would be really cool to see folks who say converting the energy grid is a toxic danger make sure they understand the toxic danger we’re already using daily.
And the legacy that has on the future of this planet.
Carbon use HAS to be drastically reduced NOW. Fact.
And you aren’t going to accomplish that by defending any energy source that uses to your dieing breath (Or the dieing breaths of the generations being born now who are going to have to deal with the general stupididty being displayed by far to many self-centered folk).

oh_no

It is funny that your “source” is a pro-solar panel propaganda page.

More than 90% of photovoltaic (PV) panels rely on crystalline silicon and have a life span of about 30 years. Forecasts suggest that 8 million metric tons (t) of these panels will have reached the end of their working lives by 2030, a tally that is projected to reach 80 million t by 2050 (Nat. Energy 2020, DOI: 10.1038/s41560-020-0645-2)

That doesn’t mean that 90% is recyclable.

Renewable Energy Laboratory, less than 10% of the country’s decommissioned panels are recycled. Even in the European Union, where legislation requires PV recycling, many waste facilities merely harvest bulk materials like aluminum frames and glass covers, which make up over 80% of a silicon panel’s mass. The remaining mass is often incinerated, even though it contains elements like silver, copper, and silicon, which together account for two-thirds of the monetary value of a silicon panel’s materials.

So even the EU and USA are having problems getting the panels recycled.

This robust, weatherproof design keeps modules functioning for decades, but it also makes them difficult to disassemble. “The problem with end-of-life modules is that they were not intended to be dismantled, and that’s a major drawback,” says Guy Chichignoud, chief technical officer of ROSI Solar, a French company involved in PV recycling.

I guess it depends on what you are willing to accept as accurate informaton. I usually don’t use a site or source that has a obvious agenda. This reads that the chance of recycling them is very low.

Source:https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Solar-panels-face-recycling-challenge-photovoltaic-waste/100/i18

McKnight

While sources are different, it appears the hair-split is on the term recyclABLE versus (what gets) recycled.
And therein lies the crux of the problem: Western sociaty in general doesn’t have the capacity to clean up after itself.
Which is why we’ve shipped so much of our waste to countries that were willing to be paid to pile it in their own backyards.
So, our problem with over-consumption is a double edged sword.
Time to start dealing with it.
Until people start wrapping their heads around the plain fact we have created a problem that requires a massive course correction in our habits, we’re in serious trouble.
If we’re going to use something that pollutes, we better know how to keep it’s more nagative impacts to the lowest level possible.. And if it can’t be effectively cleaned up, we shouldn’t use it to any great extent.
We have exisiting energy sources (Coal, Oil and Gas) that have already proven to be massively destructive.
Time is already past when we should have been moving away from them. Now we have to desperately hustle.
Better get those alternative ideas moving forward with foresight (This time).
And that isn’t a “political agenda”, it’s reality.

lumpy

Wrong and wrong, buckmoron, I’m NEITHER of those.
What is really sad about airheads like you is that you have no faith in the advancement of technology. You undermine the work of dedicated people like Mr. Byrne.
If panels wear out in 30 years, do you not think we’ll have other solutions by then? Both in creating and storing energy?
Sure, we’ll still need some petroleum in various instances, but VERY little compared to now.
Your attitude is ‘those cars will never replace our horses’.
Let me guess, you still use your flip phone from the 90’s.
Last night on the news, a young student had come up with a natural lubricant to replace petrol lubes.
Have some faith in the future and young minds!

byrnejm

Hey buckwheat,
You’re not even worthy of a response because you don’t have the guts to share your name. Do you really want to represent to society? Then have the guts to stand up publicly and present your information.

James M. Byrne, PhD.
Professor Emeritus, Research Scientist
Geography and Environment
University of Lethbridge 

Citi Zen

Without fossil fuels, we all will freeze in the winter, environmentalists included. There is no large scale viable alternative in Alberta at present for home heating. So why does our government penalize us for heating our homes (carbon TAX)?
Canada is not the problem polluter here, its countries such as China et al that are the worst offenders.

biff

seems to me that “wind” coming from our provincial capitals and from ottawa has increasingly too much power…and it smells worse with each passing year.

byrnejm

Sadly, Mr. Lyckman did not pay attention to my talk. The discussion clearly referenced a report from Sustainable Canada Dialogues, a group of academic researchers from across Canada, including myself. The Report, titled Acting on Climate Change, was published in 2015. That report, authored by close to 70 experts (Mr. Lyckman is a realtor?? … not a renewable energy expert/researcher) demonstrated that we need to back up renewable energy with connections to existing Hydro in British Columbia and Manitoba. I’m not sure how Mr. Lyckman missed that point because I had a large map that illustrated how western Canada can be powered completely on renewable energy, including existing Hydro from British Columbia and Manitoba.
With respect to Mr. Lyckman’s comment on Europe … The energy crisis this past winter in Europe was due to a shortfall of natural gas from Russia. Why would any clear thinking mind expect that non existent renewables would be able to instantaneously replace the loss of Russian natural gas? If we want renewables to replace natural gas, first, we have to build the renewable energy. It is not really fair to expect nonexistent, renewable energy to replace natural gas lost because of the Russian Ukraine conflict.
All of the work presented in my talk is based upon research published in the refereed literature authored by many of my climate change solutions research colleagues from around the world. Some of my talk was based upon my own refereed publications, which Mr. Lyckman is welcome to look up and read. In the meanwhile, it may be wise for southern Albertans, to seek advice from Mr. Lipman on real estate, but not on society level energy systems.

warm regards all,
James M. Byrne, PhD
Professor Emeritus, University of Lethbridge