A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the program. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE:
“At the start of RERenewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that...Read the Rest HERE
I studied this very topic in engineering school, for a paper. And yet I did extreme levels of research. First, I wanted it to work. Who DOESN'T want free/cheap/easy energy? I looked under every rock available. I even considered and rejected using solar to create hydrogen, as a form of a chemical battery. Hydrogen creation is a very bad idea, by the way. It is one of the few elements which, freed from bonds, has the potential to leave the atmosphere, and yet is required for the production of water. Bad, bad plan, more so since no shipping system, pipeline, or tank, has been built to actually contain that very well, meaning all parts of production, transport, and use would be leaking hydrogen all the time. Oh, and it goes *boom* really easily to boot. I did engineering analysis, economic analysis, and dug deep. More so, as I came to the same conclusion you note in the article. I knew that conclusion was not popular with the professors. So, if I was going to spit that out, I had to cover the bases. It sucks, from an idealist point of view. But the honest truth is, coal is, when all is said and done, not only more cost effective, but cleaner. Nuke plants are cheaper, but for the waste. Even solar is filthy. It's not in use, it's in the production of those panels, and perhaps some other components. Nasty stuff, makes coal seem pure as driven lily white snow.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if I could afford it, I would have a solar electric, off grid, system. I would use it to cut my other costs, but mostly it would be a failsafe for loss of electricity in the short or long term.