Renewable Energy

Here is a letter to Energy Resources and Denis Frith's Google group too:
 

To everyone except Denis Frith,

Denis doesn’t want to admit that solar and wind energy either are renewable or would be if it were not for the ridiculous energy cost of supporting a market economy*.  As it turns out, in a debate with another of Denis’s critics, Dave Kimble of Running on Empty Oz, who argued that the front-loaded investment costs of photovoltaic solar installations disqualify PV solar as a way to mitigate the effects of Peak Oil even in Australia, I conceived of a plan to bootstrap solar by purchasing abroad solar energy equipment to start up with.  Now, renewable energy technologies came into a world dominated by coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fission; so, it is understandable that the first front-loaded energy invested in “renewables” probably came from fossil fuel and nuclear, but possibly hydroelectric.  Let us assume, though, that the solar installations purchased abroad to get started in a solar economy were produced without the application of any energy that could not be termed “renewable”.  Then, the first wave of solar energy installations slated for Australia would be completely renewable.  That is, they would produce enough stored energy such that no fossil fuel at all need be used to maintain the infrastructure and build replacements for it when they were needed – and, for that matter, to restore such portions of the earth as were occupied by solar installations to Earth-as-a-garden ideality.  If the ratio ERoEI*, as defined at http://dematerialism.net/eroeistar.htm and, in greater detail, on my new blog at http://eroei.blogspot.com/, is greater than 1.0, this can be done, although ERoEIs very close to 1.0 will be poor investment risks because of long payback times and because a very slight change in circumstances could render them infeasible or because ERoEI* is actually less than 1.0 except for minor computational inaccuracies.  In the spreadsheet analysis done by Dave Kimble and me, we used an ERoEI equal to 3.0.  I assumed that ERoEI*_PV = 3.0.  Both Dave and I included construction, maintenance, and eventual replacement energy costs in perpetuity in EI.  In any case, if solar and wind are not strictly renewable, a competent energy analyst would compute ERoEI* < 1.0 and be fore-warned.  See http://dematerialism.net/pv.htm.

The reason investors are bailing out of renewables is that they have become convinced by investment bankers that the ERoEI for shale plays is greater than 1.0 if, in fact, they know what ERoEI is or should be.  To their sorrow, they are about to find out that ERoEI for shale is less than 1.0 even if operators neglect their responsibilities toward Earth.  When the shale bubble bursts, there will be much gnashing of teeth here in Texas. I feel sorry for all the new Houston citizens who are about to be left high and dry except for submergence in unmanageable credit card debt based upon false hopes for a prosperous future.  It’s too bad that they didn’t invest their futures in solar and wind and political change.

By the way, Denis Frith has been most helpful by suggesting various concrete problem areas in energy production that have to be addressed to calculate ERoEI*.  The difficulty of finding a new recycling methodology or a substitute material resource in case a material is encountered with no known substitute for which recycling is impractical remains a tough nut to crack; however, we shall cross that bridge when we come to it – and perhaps we never will.  I am certain he will continue to be of service by suggesting problem areas in establishing renewable energy technology.  It is, of course, the component of energy input that comes from the sun that suggested the term “renewable” to earlier workers.  Although we intend to “pay” Mother Earth, we have no such intention to “pay” Papa Sun.

Thomas Wayburn, Houston, Texas

http://dematerialism.net/

http://eroei.blogspot.com/
http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/
http://modrr.net/ (model railroading)

* 

• http://dematerialism.net/CwC.html
• http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm
• http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html
  

---

From: senescence-of-civilization@googlegroups.com [mailto:senescence-of-civilization@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Denis Frith
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:30 PM
To: Google IPP Group
Cc: Robert Gregory; energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: {senescence-of-civilization:1833] Fw: alternative energy and the rise and fall . . . .

The article below provides insight into misguided decisions stemming from the misperception arising from the misuse of terminology. The issue considered relates to systems providing energy. Investors with little understanding of physics are only slowly learning that the term 'clean energy' relates to systems that supply electrical energy with less use of the emission producing fossil fuels for their construction, operation and maintenance. There is no such commodity as 'clean energy'.The decline in the stock reflects the realization by many investors that they have been conned by the spurious rhetoric. If realistic terminology had been employed in describing these projects, investors would have been in a much better position to assess the worth of the proposed system, bearing in mind that it would have a limited life.

Denis Frith

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Robert Gregory <bobbygreg@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:10 AM
Subject: alternative energy and the rise and fall . . . .

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2012/dec/6/so-hows-your-green-energy-stock-doing/

So, how's your green energy stock doing?

[[[ http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2012/12/06/rennix-640_s640x427.jpg ]]]

[snip]