PV ERoEI may be negative…

16 01 2017

Well THIS will stir the hornet’s nest……. Pedro Prieto now thinks many solar panels won’t last 25-30 years, EROI may be negative……

pedro

Pedro Prieto

It must be remembered that Pedro, whose work has been published here several times, has vast experience in this, having been involved in large scale PV and wind installations in Spain. I don’t know if this article is how he wrote it in English, or whether it was poorly translated from the Spanish, but it is often difficult to read, even when you have the technical knowledge to know what he’s talking about. I had a go at editing it, see what you think… This piece certainly didn’t make me feel good about my new power station, especially after seeing ads on Tasmanian TV by someone who thinks he sells better equipment showing blown up inverters and burnt out connectors on the front face of panels….. there is a lot of rubbish out there, that’s for sure, I’ve had first hand experience of this myself, but if even best quality gear won’t last 25 years, then we will be going back to the stone age……

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our study concluded that, when what we called “extended boundaries energy inputs” were analysed, about 2/3 of the total energy inputs were other than those of the modules+inverters+metallic infrastructure to tilt and orient the modules.

So even if the cost of solar PV modules (including inverters and metallic infrastructure) were ZERO, our resulting EROI (2.4:1) would increase by maybe 1/3.

Without including the financial energy inputs (you can easily calculate them if most of the credits/leasing contracts at 10 years term with interests of between 2 and 6% were included, even if you consider energy input derived from the financial costs, only the interests (returning the capital, in my opinion, would theoretically only return the previous PREEXISTING financial (and therefore, energy) surplus, minus amortization of the principal, if any (when principal is tied to a physical preexisting good, which is not the case, I understand in most of the circulating money of today, but you know much better than me about this).

We also excluded most of the labor energy inputs, to avoid duplications with factors that were included and could eventually have some labor embedded on it. And that was another big bunch of energy input excluded from our analysis.

As I mentioned before, if we added only these two factors that were intentionally excluded, not to open up old wounds and trying to be conservative, plus the fact that we include only a small, well-known portion of the energy inputs required to stabilize the electric networks, if modern renewables had a much higher or even a 100% penetration,  it is more than probable that the solar PV EROI would have resulted in <1:1.

And I do not believe we can make solar modules with even 25 ~ 30 years lifetime. There are certainly working modules that have lasted 30 years+ and still work. Usually in well cared and maintained facilities in research labs or factories of the developed world. But this far away from expected results when generalized to a wide or global solar PV installed plant. Dreaming of having them 100 or 500 years is absolutely unthinkable.

Modules have, by definition, to be exposed more than anything else, to solar rays (to be more efficient). Just look at stones exposed to sun rays from sunrise to sunset and to wind, rain, moisture, corrosion, dust, animal dung (yes, animal dung, a lot of it from birds or bee or wasp nests on modules) and see how they erode. Now think of sophisticated modules  exposed to hail, with glass getting brittle, with their Tedlar, EVA and/or other synthetic components sealing the joints between glass and metallic frames eroding or degrading with UV rays and breaking the sealed package protecting the cells inside, back panels with connection boxes, subject to vibration with wind forces and disconnecting the joints and finally provoking the burning of the connectors; fans in the inverter housings with their gears or moving parts exhausted or tired, that if not maintained regularly, end failing and perhaps, if in summer, elevating the temperature of the inverter in the housing and provoking the fuse to blown or some other vital components, etc.

I have seen many examples of different manufacturers of all types of modules (single/mono, multi/poli, amorphous, thin film high concentration with lenses, titanium dioxide, etc.) in the test chambers, after warranty claims by the clients to the manufacturers. I have attended test fields of auditing companies contracted by retailers, detecting hot spots in faulty internal solder joints straight from the factory to the customers.

I have seen a whole batch from a promising leading US brand specializing in thin film modules(confidentiality does not permit me to name, as yet) having to return it because it did not comply with specs. Now, as I mentioned, I am in contact with a desperate retailer, seeking replacement modules or reimbursement (the manufacturer is broke and has disappeared) that will last a little loger than those he purchased (not Chinese) about 6 years ago and of which about 2/7 of the total have failed, without a practical replacement being available because present modules in the market have higher nominal output power than those originally contracted for and with different voltage and currents that do not permit unitary replacements in arrays or strings, being forced to a complex and costly manipulation to reconfigure arrays with old modules and creating new arrays with new modules and adapting inverters to the new currents and voltages delivered (Maximum Power Point Tracking or MPPT)

We mentioned many other examples of real life affecting functionality of solar PV systems in our book. The reality, 2 years after the publication of the book, proved us very optimistic. Imagine when you install a solar village in a remote area of Morocco, or Nigeria or Atacama in Northern Chile and the nearest replacement of a single broken power thysristor or IGBT that is stopping a whole inverter from operating, plus the entire plant behind it (not manufactured in the country) and about 2,000 Km -or more- from the factory that needs to pass customs like the one in Santos (Brazil), where tens of thousands of containers are blocked for more than one week (plus the usual 6 to 10 weeks custom procedures) because of a fire in a refinery close to the only motorway leaving the Santos port to Sao Paulo..

100 or 500 years lifetime? ha, ha, ha.





White man’s magic……

8 10 2016

20160418_163158Now that our power station has been commissioned, is actually powering stuff, and because it’s been an evolutionary thing over many months, I’ve decided to chronicle how our rather unique stand alone power system is built in one post, for the benefit of all mankind…. as it were!

The solar power is generated by eight 260W monocrystaline photovoltaic panels, for a 20161008_131339total of 2080 Watts. They are mounted on a custom made steel frame, installed by the first wwoofer I had working for me here… They are connected in two strings of four with each string producing 1000W at 150V DC maximum. The two pairs of wires are fed underground and through the container’s floor in that orange conduit, to the DC circuit box where two 20 Amp circuit breakers protect the system against short circuits or serious malfunctions. Each circuit breaker is dipole, and simultaneously breaks both the positive and negative circuits.

dcsector

DC Circuits

From this box, the solar power is fed to the MidNite Classic Maximum Power Point Tracker. This magic black box manipulates the incoming electricity so that it is fed into the batteries at the optimum voltage/amperage combination needed to maximise the amount of energy fed into the batteries to keep them charged. I had never used one of these before, but they are well worth the $900 , because it does all sorts of other tricks, like boost charging, battery equalising, floating, and even monitors the amount of energy fed into the batteries, logging all that information where it can be accessed later…… If I decide to later add a wind turbine, I will get a second one to control its output.

The power going into the batteries (and out of them for powering things with the inverter) go through a fuse box with two 160A slow burn fuses. Batteries are capable of producing spectacular amounts of current (think big sparks and fire!) and in the unlikely event of something seriously bad happening to the batteries, these fuses will burn and save the rest of the system. The fuse box is also designed such that it can be used to disconnect the batteries from everything else in an emergency, or for maintenance. There’s one fuse for the positive cable, and one victronfor the negative……

Once charged, the energy contained within the batteries can be extracted back out (through the aforementioned fusebox) by the Victron inverter, which converts the 48V (nominal) DC from the batteries into 230V AC for powering all the things we take for granted in houses, like lights, fridges, TVs and washing machines etc……

This inverter has now had its settings altered to operate at between 64V and 37.5V. It’s because Victrons can be reprogrammed to do this that I opted for this technology, as the Nickel Iron batteries are able to work safely at an even greater voltage range. The blue digital voltmeter is something I added to the inverter to get an instant readout of the battery bank’s voltage.

Just as there is a series of safety devices on the DC side of the system, the AC sector is also wired up to protect the wiring and the people using the electricity! You will also notice the green/yellow striped earth wires to/from the MidNite Classic and the inverter, all connected to the earth in the AC switchboard, all grounded to the container itself.

acsectorBefore going into the AC circuit box, I wired in an old energy meter I have had for years to monitor how much energy we will be consuming in the house (as well as outside to pump water for the gardens etc…). I used to use it for doing energy audits, and they sure don’t make them like this anymore…!

The 230V output is split into three, with another dipole circuit breaker (one for the active and one for the neutral) taking power to where the house will be built, currently permanently switched off. Another 10A circuit breaker takes current to a power point inside the container for running the freezer and charging cordless tool batteries (so far), while a 15A breaker takes power to an external 15A all weather power point outside the container where I currently plug the new pump in (more about this in a later post).

The two power points are protected with safety switches which are now built into the circuit breakers. It’s amazing how fast technology changes/improves these days….

The battery bank consists of forty 1.2V Nickel Iron cells (to make the nominal 48V). You can read about why I selected this battery chemistry here……

20161023_103049

Earth/Ground wire to stake

 

The container is earthed with a copper stake, and everything involved in this system is also earthed through the steel container, one advantage of having a steel building! The safety switches test just fine, the whole system is very safe. To vent the potentially explosive hydrogen gas that bubbles from the batteries, two whirlybird extractors were put into the container’s roof, and six vents at floor level on the western end of the container were also added. It’s where the wind usually comes from, and it will no doubt assist in keeping everything cool, even in summer….

vents

Floor level air vents

 

batterybankI’m really stoked at how well it’s all working. Even on really rainy days, the solar array was able to feed 4.7kWh of energy into the battery bank, and even on the very worst day when the sky was inky black and it just poured all day long, 1.7kWh was absorbed by the batteries, almost enough to power our old house for a whole day…. The design electricity consumption for the new house is 2kWh/day, though at this stage it’s still unknown how much energy I will need to pump water for the market garden.

I’m finding adjusting to the NiFe batteries a little tricky. Unlike conventional Lead Acid batteries, these prefer to be worked hard. I’m told by people who run them that the harder you cycle them, the more capacity they build up, and the longer they last between electrolyte replacement. Because I’m (so far) only pulling 0.9kWh/day out of them with the freezer, the batteries haven’t been worked enough. So I recently turned the solar power completely off for eight or nine days, just to ‘flatten’ them. They were fully charged again within two days…. Nickel Iron batteries, unlike the other technologies sold everywhere, can be ‘flattened’ as often as you like….. you just need to always make sure there’s enough left to start the freezer again, or else lose the contents!

Now the container sports a 1000 litre IBC for gravity fed water storage….. but you’ll have to wait for the next installment.

 





Eight Pitfalls in Evaluating Green Energy Solutions

4 07 2016

Does the recent climate accord between US and China mean that many countries will now forge ahead with renewables and other green solutions? I think that there are more pitfalls than many realize.

Pitfall 1. Green solutions tend to push us from one set of resources that are a problem today (fossil fuels) to other resources that are likely to be problems in the longer term.  

The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:

  1. Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
  2. Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
  3. Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
  4. Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
  5. Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
  6. Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
  7. Arable land per person, as population continues to rise

The danger in almost every “solution” is that we simply transfer our problems from one area to another. Growing corn for ethanol can be a problem for soil quality (erosion of topsoil), fresh water (using water from aquifers in Nebraska, Colorado). If farmers switch to no-till farming to prevent the erosion issue, then great amounts of Round Up are often used, leading to loss of lives of other species.

Encouraging use of forest products because they are renewable can lead to loss of forest cover, as more trees are made into wood chips. There can even be a roundabout reason for loss of forest cover: if high-cost renewables indirectly make citizens poorer, citizens may save money on fuel by illegally cutting down trees.

High tech goods tend to use considerable quantities of rare minerals, many of which are quite polluting if they are released into the environment where we work or live. This is a problem both for extraction and for long-term disposal.

Pitfall 2. Green solutions that use rare minerals are likely not very scalable because of quantity limits and low recycling rates.  

Computers, which are the heart of many high-tech goods, use almost the entire periodic table of elements.

Figure 1. Slide by Alicia Valero showing that almost the entire periodic table of elements is used for computers.

When minerals are used in small quantities, especially when they are used in conjunction with many other minerals, they become virtually impossible to recycle. Experience indicates that less than 1% of specialty metals are recycled.

Figure 2. Slide by Alicia Valero showing recycling rates of elements.

Green technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, have pushed resource use toward minerals that were little exploited in the past. If we try to ramp up usage, current mines are likely to deplete rapidly. We will eventually need to add new mines in areas where resource quality is lower and concern about pollution is higher. Costs will be much higher in such mines, making devices using such minerals less affordable, rather than more affordable, in the long run.

Of course, a second issue in the scalability of these resources has to do with limits on oil supply. As ores of scarce minerals deplete, more rather than less oil will be needed for extraction. If oil is in short supply, obtaining this oil is also likely to be a problem, also inhibiting scalability of the scarce mineral extraction. The issue with respect to oil supply may not be high price; it may be low price, for reasons I will explain later in this post.

Pitfall 3. High-cost energy sources are the opposite of the “gift that keeps on giving.” Instead, they often represent the “subsidy that keeps on taking.”

Oil that was cheap to extract (say $20 barrel) was the true “gift that keeps on giving.” It made workers more efficient in their jobs, thereby contributing to efficiency gains. It made countries using the oil more able to create goods and services cheaply, thus helping them compete better against other countries. Wages tended to rise, as long at the price of oil stayed below $40 or $50 per barrel (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Average wages in 2012$ compared to Brent oil price, also in 2012$. Average wages are total wages based on BEA data adjusted by the CPI-Urban, divided total population. Thus, they reflect changes in the proportion of population employed as well as wage levels.

More workers joined the work force, as well. This was possible in part because fossil fuels made contraceptives available, reducing family size. Fossil fuels also made tools such as dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers available, reducing the hours needed in housework. Once oil became high-priced (that is, over $40 or $50 per barrel), its favorable impact on wage growth disappeared.

When we attempt to add new higher-cost sources of energy, whether they are high-cost oil or high-cost renewables, they present a drag on the economy for three reasons:

  1. Consumers tend to cut back on discretionary expenditures, because energy products (including food, which is made using oil and other energy products) are a necessity. These cutbacks feed back through the economy and lead to layoffs in discretionary sectors. If they are severe enough, they can lead to debt defaults as well, because laid-off workers have difficulty paying their bills.
  2.  An economy with high-priced sources of energy becomes less competitive in the world economy, competing with countries using less expensive sources of fuel. This tends to lead to lower employment in countries whose mix of energy is weighted toward high-priced fuels.
  3. With (1) and (2) happening, economic growth slows. There are fewer jobs and debt becomes harder to repay.

In some sense, the cost producing of an energy product is a measure of diminishing returns–that is, cost is a measure of the amount of resources that directly and indirectly or indirectly go into making that device or energy product, with higher cost reflecting increasing effort required to make an energy product. If more resources are used in producing high-cost energy products, fewer resources are available for the rest of the economy. Even if a country tries to hide this situation behind a subsidy, the problem comes back to bite the country. This issue underlies the reason that subsidies tend to “keeping on taking.”

The dollar amount of subsidies is also concerning. Currently, subsidies for renewables (before the multiplier effect) average at least $48 per barrel equivalent of oil.1 With the multiplier effect, the dollar amount of subsidies is likely more than the current cost of oil (about $80), and possibly even more than the peak cost of oil in 2008 (about $147). The subsidy (before multiplier effect) per metric ton of oil equivalent amounts to $351. This is far more than the charge for any carbon tax.

Pitfall 4. Green technology (including renewables) can only be add-ons to the fossil fuel system.

A major reason why green technology can only be add-ons to the fossil fuel system relates to Pitfalls 1 through 3. New devices, such as wind turbines, solar PV, and electric cars aren’t very scalable because of high required subsidies, depletion issues, pollution issues, and other limits that we don’t often think about.

A related reason is the fact that even if an energy product is “renewable,” it needs long-term maintenance. For example, a wind turbine needs replacement parts from around the world. These are not available without fossil fuels. Any electrical transmission system transporting wind or solar energy will need frequent repairs, also requiring fossil fuels, usually oil (for building roads and for operating repair trucks and helicopters).

Given the problems with scalability, there is no way that all current uses of fossil fuels can all be converted to run on renewables. According to BP data, in 2013 renewable energy (including biofuels and hydroelectric) amounted to only 9.4% of total energy use. Wind amounted to 1.1% of world energy use; solar amounted to 0.2% of world energy use.

Pitfall 5. We can’t expect oil prices to keep rising because of affordability issues.  

Economists tell us that if there are inadequate oil supplies there should be few problems:  higher prices will reduce demand, encourage more oil production, and encourage production of alternatives. Unfortunately, there is also a roundabout way that demand is reduced: wages tend to be affected by high oil prices, because high-priced oil tends to lead to less employment (Figure 3). With wages not rising much, the rate of growth of debt also tends to slow. The result is that products that use oil (such as cars) are less affordable, leading to less demand for oil. This seems to be the issue we are now encountering, with many young people unable to find good-paying jobs.

If oil prices decline, rather than rise, this creates a problem for renewables and other green alternatives, because needed subsidies are likely to rise rather than disappear.

The other issue with falling oil prices is that oil prices quickly become too low for producers. Producers cut back on new development, leading to a decrease in oil supply in a year or two. Renewables and the electric grid need oil for maintenance, so are likely to be affected as well. Related posts include Low Oil Prices: Sign of a Debt Bubble Collapse, Leading to the End of Oil Supply? and Oil Price Slide – No Good Way Out.

Pitfall 6. It is often difficult to get the finances for an electrical system that uses intermittent renewables to work out well.  

Intermittent renewables, such as electricity from wind, solar PV, and wave energy, tend to work acceptably well, in certain specialized cases:

  • When there is a lot of hydroelectricity nearby to offset shifts in intermittent renewable supply;
  • When the amount added is sufficient small that it has only a small impact on the grid;
  • When the cost of electricity from otherwise available sources, such as burning oil, is very high. This often happens on tropical islands. In such cases, the economy has already adjusted to very high-priced electricity.

Intermittent renewables can also work well supporting tasks that can be intermittent. For example, solar panels can work well for pumping water and for desalination, especially if the alternative is using diesel for fuel.

Where intermittent renewables tend not to work well is when

  1. Consumers and businesses expect to get a big credit for using electricity from intermittent renewables, but
  2. Electricity added to the grid by intermittent renewables leads to little cost savings for electricity providers.

For example, people with solar panels often expect “net metering,” a credit equal to the retail price of electricity for electricity sold to the electric grid. The benefit to electric grid is generally a lot less than the credit for net metering, because the utility still needs to maintain the transmission lines and do many of the functions that it did in the past, such as send out bills. In theory, the utility still should get paid for all of these functions, but doesn’t. Net metering gives way too much credit to those with solar panels, relative to the savings to the electric companies. This approach runs the risk of starving fossil fuel, nuclear, and grid portion of the system of needed revenue.

A similar problem can occur if an electric grid buys wind or solar energy on a preferential basis from commercial providers at wholesale rates in effect for that time of day. This practice tends to lead to a loss of profitability for fossil fuel-based providers of electricity. This is especially the case for natural gas “peaking plants” that normally operate for only a few hours a year, when electricity rates are very high.

Germany has been adding wind and solar, in an attempt to offset reductions in nuclear power production. Germany is now running into difficulty with its pricing approach for renewables. Some of its natural gas providers of electricity have threatened to shut down because they are not making adequate profits with the current pricing plan. Germany also finds itself using more cheap (but polluting) lignite coal, in an attempt to keep total electrical costs within a range customers can afford.

Pitfall 7. Adding intermittent renewables to the electric grid makes the operation of the grid more complex and more difficult to manage. We run the risk of more blackouts and eventual failure of the grid. 

In theory, we can change the electric grid in many ways at once. We can add intermittent renewables, “smart grids,” and “smart appliances” that turn on and off, depending on the needs of the electric grid. We can add the charging of electric automobiles as well. All of these changes add to the complexity of the system. They also increase the vulnerability of the system to hackers.

The usual assumption is that we can step up to the challenge–we can handle this increased complexity. A recent report by The Institution of Engineering and Technology in the UK on the Resilience of the Electricity Infrastructure questions whether this is the case. It says such changes, ” .  .  . vastly increase complexity and require a level of engineering coordination and integration that the current industry structure and market regime does not provide.” Perhaps the system can be changed so that more attention is focused on resilience, but incentives need to be changed to make resilience (and not profit) a top priority. It is doubtful this will happen.

The electric grid has been called the worlds ‘s largest and most complex machine. We “mess with it” at our own risk. Nafeez Ahmed recently published an article called The Coming Blackout Epidemic, discussing challenges grids are now facing. I have written about electric grid problems in the past myself: The US Electric Grid: Will it be Our Undoing?

Pitfall 8. A person needs to be very careful in looking at studies that claim to show favorable performance for intermittent renewables.  

Analysts often overestimate the benefits of wind and solar. Just this week a new report was published saying that the largest solar plant in the world is so far producing only half of the electricity originally anticipated since it opened in February 2014.

In my view, “standard” Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) calculations tend to overstate the benefits of intermittent renewables, because they do not include a “time variable,” and because they do not consider the effect of intermittency. More specialized studies that do include these variables show very concerning results. For example, Graham Palmer looks at the dynamic EROEI of solar PV, using batteries (replaced at eight year intervals) to mitigate intermittency.2 He did not include inverters–something that would be needed and would reduce the return further.

Figure 4. Graham Palmer's chart of Dynamic Energy Returned on Energy Invested from "Energy in Australia."

Palmer’s work indicates that because of the big energy investment initially required, the system is left in a deficit energy position for a very long time. The energy that is put into the system is not paid back until 25 years after the system is set up. After the full 30-year lifetime of the solar panel, the system returns 1.3 times the initial direct energy investment.

One further catch is that the energy used in the EROEI calculations includes only a list of direct energy inputs. The total energy required is much higher; it includes indirect inputs that are not directly measured as well as energy needed to provide necessary infrastructure, such as roads and schools. When these are considered, the minimum EROEI needs to be something like 10. Thus, the solar panel plus battery system modeled is really a net energy sink, rather than a net energy producer.  

Another study by Weissbach et al. looks at the impact of adjusting for intermittency. (This study, unlike Palmer’s, doesn’t attempt to adjust for timing differences.) It concludes, “The results show that nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems . . . are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.”

Conclusion

It would be nice to have a way around limits in a finite world. Unfortunately, this is not possible in the long run. At best, green solutions can help us avoid limits for a little while longer.

The problem we have is that statements about green energy are often overly optimistic. Cost comparisons are often just plain wrong–for example, the supposed near grid parity of solar panels is an “apples to oranges” comparison. An electric utility cannot possibility credit a user with the full retail cost of electricity for the intermittent period it is available, without going broke. Similarly, it is easy to overpay for wind energy, if payments are made based on time-of-day wholesale electricity costs. We will continue to need our fossil-fueled balancing system for the electric grid indefinitely, so we need to continue to financially support this system.

There clearly are some green solutions that will work, at least until the resources needed to produce these solutions are exhausted or other limits are reached. For example, geothermal may be solutions in some locations. Hydroelectric, including “run of the stream” hydro, may be a solution in some locations. In all cases, a clear look at trade-offs needs to be done in advance. New devices, such as gravity powered lamps and solar thermal water heaters, may be helpful especially if they do not use resources in short supply and are not likely to cause pollution problems in the long run.

Expectations for wind and solar PV need to be reduced. Solar PV and offshore wind are both likely net energy sinks because of storage and balancing needs, if they are added to the electric grid in more than very small amounts. Onshore wind is less bad, but it needs to be evaluated closely in each particular location. The need for large subsidies should be a red flag that costs are likely to be high, both short and long term. Another consideration is that wind is likely to have a short lifespan if oil supplies are interrupted, because of its frequent need for replacement parts from around the world.

Some citizens who are concerned about the long-term viability of the electric grid will no doubt want to purchase their own solar systems with inverters and back-up batteries. I see no reason to discourage people who want to do this–the systems may prove to be of assistance to these citizens. But I see no reason to subsidize these purchases, except perhaps in areas (such as tropical islands) where this is the most cost-effective way of producing electric power.

Notes:

[1] In 2013, the total amount of subsidies for renewables was $121 billion according to the IEA. If we compare this to the amount of renewables (biofuels + other renewables) reported by BP, we find that the subsidy per barrel of oil equivalent in was $48 per barrel of oil equivalent. These amounts are likely understated, because BP biofuels include fuel that doesn’t require subsidies, such as waste sawdust burned for electricity.

[2] Palmer’s work is published in Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia’s Economic Growth, published by Springer in 2014. This book is part of Prof. Charles Hall’s “Briefs in Energy” series.





When it rains it pours…..

18 05 2016

And I mean literally, as well as metaphorically.  We’re just half way through May, and Tasmania has already tallied more than its average May rainfall, following months and months of well below average rain.

On the metaphorical side, while the sawmilling is still happening (when the rain pauses), the excavator turned up.  In total darkness, and drizzling rain, with a huge truck that almost didn’t make it through our driveway which is flanked by two deep ditches at the

digger

Dawn of a new era…?

roadside.  Because the guy who normally floats Trevor’s excavator let him down, he had to use this oversized low loader, which then got immediately bogged almost to the axle behind my shed after unloading the digger….. which had to be used to pull the truck out.  Trust me, it was more excitement than I could wish for at dinner time.

That very evening, I get an email saying my batteries were at a depot 20km North of Hobart, so I spent a fine day driving to the big smoke to pick them up, over 500kg….  After so much rain, the farm is getting very slippery for my two wheel drive ute, and reaching some of the places I’ve been taking for granted is getting much harder, but I managed to get to the container in one go without getting bogged!

20160517_145235The batteries came in crates meant to be used just once, there was no way of dismantling them carefully for reuse; they were solid enough for the job, but totally fell to pieces when prized apart.  And so many nails and screws, it was unbelievable.  The crate labeled ‘accessories’ had the electrolyte powders (caustic), heavy duty rubber aprons and gloves, eye protection, battery hydrometer, thermometer, insulated spanners for bolting the things together with the links supplied, terminal protectors, and even a special tool for removing the filler caps.  You’d think there would be instructions for mixing the electrolyte (as promised), but that was not the case, a minor issue I’m sure as I will 20160517_160653certainly get them as necessary from Ironcore.

The first thing you notice when lifting them up is how light they are.  Each 1.2V battery is the size of a heavy duty car battery, but easily half the weight.  Less actually, because I eventually started moving them into the container two at a time, one under each arm! Even filling them up with electrolyte would only increase their weight by one kg, so it wasn’t why they were this light, they simply don’t have lead in them.

These Nickel iron batteries were originally designed over 100 years ago to be used in electric vehicles, and now it’s got me thinking about using them for doing this too if I ever get around to converting one of my utes to EV status.  Ironcore sell 1.2V 10Ah batteries that weigh just 1.2kg each, which would be a good size as an EV would need at least 400 of them to reach a working voltage of 480V DC; such a battery bank would cost ‘only’ $6000, and with a capacity of 4kWh should give the ute a range of maybe 50 km….. enough to get from here to Huonville……..

Now the batteries are on the floor, I’ve decided that they are not staying there, and I will have to build or buy some shelving to raise them up.  There’s no way I’m going to be bending over to maintain this many cells on a regular basis at floor level… Shelving’s always handy for storing tools etc anyway, so now I have something else to keep me occupied!  No time to get bored around here……





Another study on the ERoEI of solar PV

10 05 2016

Originally posted by Euan Mearns on his blog Energy Matters, this study makes Pedro Prieto’s look very good….. the differences in ERoEI between the two studies must be a function of the difference in latitude between Spain and the UK, and even possibly by the fact that as the ERoEI of fossil fuels drops like a stone, the ERoEI of renewables must follow suit, as they rely entirely on the former.  Is Mearns a fan of nuclear power?  You make up your mind….

As Fort McMurray burns, and its smoke plume reaches the East coast of the USA, it’s occurred to me that the inevitable efforts and energy smoke-plume-from-fort-mcmurray-fire-reaches-us-east-coastrequired to rebuild it once the fire is out (IF, that is, it doesn’t reach the tar sands and sets them alight…), should be included in the ERoEI of fossil fuels.  Whilst it’s impossible to say Climate Change caused the fire in Alberta Canada, it’s impossible to not make the connection that the only reason it was over 20°C when the fire started was entirely down to the jetstream going haywire because of the arctic melt……  in fact, the energy spent rebuilding destroyed infrastructure caused by Climate Change anywhere should now be included in the ERoEI of fossil fuels….

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

A new study by Ferroni and Hopkirk [1] estimates the ERoEI of temperate latitude solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to be 0.83. If correct, that means more energy is used to make the PV panels than will ever be recovered from them during their 25 year lifetime. A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity. Worse than that, all the CO2 from PV production is in the atmosphere today, while burning coal to make electricity, the emissions would be spread over the 25 year period. The image shows the true green credentials of solar PV where industrial wastelands have been created in China so that Europeans can make believe they are reducing CO2 emissions (image credit Business Insider).

I have been asked to write a post reviewing the concept of energy return on energy invested (ER0EI) and as a first step in that direction I sent an email to my State-side friends Charlie Hall, Nate Hagens and David Murphy asking that they send me recent literature. The first paper I read was by Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk titled Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation [1] and the findings are so stunning that I felt compelled to write this post immediately.

So what is ERoEI? It is simply the ratio of energy gathered to the amount of energy used to gather the energy (the energy invested):

ERoEI = energy gathered / energy invested

Simple, isn’t it? Well it’s not quite so simple as it appears at first sight. For example, using PV to illustrate the point, the energy gathered will depend on latitude, the amount of sunshine, the orientation of the panels and also on the lifetime of the panels themselves. And how do you record or measure the energy invested? Do you simply measure the electricity used at the PV factory, or do you include the energy consumed by the workers and the miners who mined the silicon and the coal that is used to make the electricity? Ferroni and Hopkirk go into all of these details and come up with an ERoEI for temperate latitude solar PV of 0.83. At this level, solar PV is not an energy source but is an energy sink. That is for Switzerland and Germany. It will be much worse in Aberdeen!

Why is ERoEI important? It is a concept that is alien to most individuals, including many engineers, energy sector employees, academics and policy makers. The related concept of net energy is defined as:

Net Energy = ERoEI – 1 (where 1 is the energy invested)

Net energy is the surplus energy left over from our energy gathering activities that is used to power society – build hospitals, schools, aircraft carriers and to grow food. In the past the ERoEI of our primary energy sources – oil, gas and coal – was so high, probably over 50, that there was bucket loads of cheap energy left over to build all the infrastructure and to feed all the people that now inhabit The Earth. But with the net energy equation for solar PV looking like this:

0.83-1 = -0.17

….. Brussels we have a problem!

So how can it be possible that we are managing to deploy devices that evidently consume rather than produce energy? The simple answer is that our finance system, laws and subsidies are able to bend the laws of physics and thermodynamics for so long as we have enough high ERoEI energy available to maintain the whole system and to subsidise parasitic renewables. Try mining and purifying silicon using an electric mining machine powered by The Sun and the laws of physics will re-establish themselves quite quickly.

In very simple terms, solar PV deployed in northern Europe can be viewed as coal burned in China used to generate electricity over here. All of the CO2 emissions, that underpin the motive for PV, are made in China. Only in the event of high energy gain in the PV device would solar PV reduce CO2 emissions. More on that later.

Energy Return

The calculations are all based on the energy produced by 1 m^2 of PV.

Theoretical calculations of what PV modules should generate made by manufacturers do not take into account operational degradation due to surface dirt. Nor do they take into account poor orientation, unit failure or breakage, all of which are quite common.

The actual energy produced using Swiss statistics works out at 106kWe/m^2 yr

We then also need to know how long the panels last. Manufacturers claim 30 years while empirical evidence suggests a mean scrapage age of only 17 years in Germany. Ferroni and Hopkirk use a generous 25 year unit life.

Combining all these factors leads to a number of 2203kWe/m^2 for the life of a unit.

Energy Invested

The energy invested calculation is also based on 1 m^2 of panel and uses mass of materials as a proxy for energy consumed and GDP energy intensity as a proxy for the labour part of the equation.

Two different methods for measuring energy invested are described:

  • ERoEI(IEA)
  • ERoEI(Ext)

Where IEA = methodology employed by the International Energy Agency and Ext = extended boundary as described by Murphy and Hall, 2010 [2,3]. The difference between the two is that the IEA is tending to focus on the energy used in the factory process while the extended methodology of Murphy and Hall, 2010 includes activities such as mining, purifying and transporting the silicon raw material.

In my opinion, Ferroni and Hopkirk correctly follow the extended ERoEI methodology of Murphy and Hall and include the following in their calculations:

  • Materials to make panels but also to erect and install panels
  • Labour at every stage of the process from mining manufacture and disposal
  • Manufacturing process i.e. the energy used in the various factories
  • Faulty panels that are discarded
  • Capital which is viewed as the utilisation of pre-existing infrastructure and energy investment
  • Integration of intermittent PV onto the grid

And that gives us the result of ERoEI:

2203 / 2664 kW he/m^2 = 0.83

The only point I would question is the inclusion of the energy cost of capital. All energy produced can be divided into energy used to gather energy and energy for society and I would question whether the cost of capital does not fall into the latter category?

But there appears to be one major omission and that is the energy cost of distribution. In Europe, about 50% of the cost of electricity (excluding taxes) falls to the grid construction and maintenance. If that was to be included it would make another serious dent in the ERoEI.

This value for ERoEI is lower than the value of 2 reported by Prieto and Hall [4] and substantially lower that the values of 5 to 6 reported by the IEA [5]. One reason for this is that the current paper [1] is specifically for temperate latitude solar. But Ferroni and Hopkirk also detail omissions by the IEA as summarised below.

IEA energy input omissions and errors

a) The energy flux across the system boundaries and invested for the labour is not included.
b) The energy flux across the system boundaries and invested for the capital is not included.
c) The energy invested for integration of the PV-generated electricity into a complex and flexible electricity supply and distribution system is not included (energy production does not follow the needs of the customer).
d) The IEA guidelines specify the use of “primary energy equivalent” as a basis. However, since the energy returned is measured as secondary electrical energy, the energy carrier itself, and since some 64% to 67% of the energy invested for the production of solar-silicon and PV modules is also in the form of electricity (Weissbach et al., 2013) and since moreover, the rules for the conversion from carrier or secondary energy back to primary energy are not scientifically perfect (Giampietro and Sorman, 2013), it is both easier and more appropriate to express the energy invested as electrical energy. The direct contribution of fossil fuel, for instance in providing energy for process heating, also has to be converted into secondary energy. The conversion from a fossil fuel’s internal chemical energy to electricity is achieved in modern power plants with an efficiency of 38% according to the BP statistic protocol (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2015). In the present paper, in order to avoid conversion errors, we shall continue to use electrical (i.e. secondary) energy in kW he/m2 as our basic energy unit.
e) The recommended plant lifetime of 30 years, based on the experiences to date, must be regarded as unrealistic.
f) The energy returned can and should be based on actual experimental data measured in the field. Use of this procedure will yield values in general much lower than the electricity production expected by investors and politicians.

Of those I’d agree straight off with “a”, “c” and “f”. I’m not sure about “b” and “e” I’m sure this will be subject to debate. “d” is a complex issue and is in fact the same one described in my recent post EU and BP Renewable Electricity Accounting Methodologies. I agree with Ferroni and Hopkirk that units of electricity should be used throughout but if the IEA have grossed up the electricity used to account for thermal losses in power stations then this would increase their energy invested and suppress not inflate their estimates of ERoEI. Hence this is a point that needs to be clarified.

Environmental impacts

The main reason for deploying solar PV in Europe is to lower CO2 emissions. The European Commission and most European governments have been living in cloud cuckoo land allowing CO2 intensive industries to move to China, lowering emissions in Europe while raising emissions in China and making believe that importing steel from China somehow is emissions free.

The example of solar PV brings this into sharp focus. Assuming the main energy input is from coal (and low efficiency dirty coal at that) and with ERoEI <1, making electricity from solar PV will actually create higher emissions than had coal been used directly to make electricity for consumption in the first place. But it’s a lot worse than that. All of the emissions associated with 25 years of electricity production are in the atmosphere now making global warming much worse than it would otherwise have been without the PV.

And it gets even worse than that! The manufacture of PV panels involves lots of nasty chemicals too:

Many potentially hazardous chemicals are used during the production of solar modules. To be mentioned here is, for instance, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), (Arnold et al., 2013), a gas used for the cleaning of the remaining silicon-containing contaminants in process chambers. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) this gas has a global warming potential of approximately 16600 times that of CO2. Two other similarly undesirable “greenhouse” gases appearing are hexafluoroethane (C2F6) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

And

The average weight of a photovoltaic module is 16 kg/m2 and the weight of the support system, inverter and the balance of the system is at least 25 kg/m2 (Myrans, 2009), whereby the weight of concrete is not included. Also, most chemicals used, such as acids/ bases, etchants, elemental gases, dopants, photolithographic chemicals etc. are not included, since quantities are small. But, we must add hydrochloric acid (HCl): the production of the solar- grade silicon for one square meter of panel area requires 3.5 kg of concentrated hydrochloric acid.

Comparison with nuclear

The paper offers some interesting comparisons with nuclear power. Looking first at materials used per unit of electricity produced:

  • PV uses 20.2 g per kW he (mainly steel aluminium and copper)
  • A nuclear power station uses 0.31 g per kW he (mainly steel) for a load factor of 85%

kW he = kilowatt hours electrical

Looking at labour, the authors observe:

The suppliers involved in the renewable energies industry advertise their capability to create many new jobs.

While of course the best forms of energy use as little labour as possible. At the point where ERoEI reaches 1, everyone is engaged in gathering energy and society as we know it collapses!

  • Solar PV creates 94.4 jobs per MW installed, adjusted for capacity factor.
  • Nuclear creates 13 jobs per MW installed covering construction, operation and decommissioning.

This may seem great to the politicians but it’s this inefficiency that makes solar PV expensive and kills the ERoEI. And looking at capital costs:

  • Solar PV needs CHF 6000 per kW installed (CHF = Swiss Franc)
  • Nuclear power CHF 5500 per kW installed

But normalising for capacity factors of 9% for solar and 85% for nuclear we get for effective capacity:

66,667 / 6471 = 10.3

Solar PV is 10 times more capital intensive than nuclear.

Energy transformation

When ERoEI approaches or goes below 1 we enter the realm of energy transformation which is quite common in our energy system. For example, converting coal to electricity we lose approximately 62% of the thermal energy. Converting coal and other raw materials into a PV panel may in certain circumstances make some sense. For example PV and a battery system may provide African villages with some electricity where there is little hope of ever getting a grid connection. Likewise for a mountain cabin. Individuals concerned about blackouts may also consider a PV battery system as a backup contingency.

But as a means of reducing CO2 emissions PV fails the test badly at temperate latitudes. It simply adds cost and noise to the system. In sunnier climates the situation will improve.

Concluding comments

The findings of this single study suggest that deploying solar PV at high latitudes in countries like Germany and the UK is a total waste of time, energy and money. All that is achieved is to raise the price of electricity and destabilise the grid. Defenders of RE and solar will point out that this is a single paper and there are certainly some of the inputs to Ferroni and Hopkirk that are open to debate. But there are reasons to believe that the findings are zeroing in on reality. For example Prieto and Hall found ERoEI for solar PV = 2. Looking only at cloudy, high temperate latitudes will substantially degrade that number.

And you just need to look at the outputs as shown below. Solar PV produces a dribble in winter and absolutely nothing at the 18:00 peak demand. There is a large financial cost and energy cost to compensate for this that RE enthusiasts dismiss with a wave of the arm.

Figure 1 From UK Grid Graphed. The distribution of solar production in the UK has grown 7 fold in 4 years. But 7 times a dribble in winter is still a dribble.  The large amount of embodied energy in these expensive devices does no work for us at all when we need it most.

Energy Matters has a good search facility top right. Insert solar pv and I was surprised to find how many articles Roger and I have written and they all more or less reach the same conclusions. I have added these links at the end of the post.

Figure 2 A typical solar installation in Aberdeen where the panels are on an east facing roof leaving the ideal south facing roof empty. This is a symbol of ignorance and stupidity that also pervades academia. Has anyone seen a University that does not have solar PV deployed? I’ve heard academics argue that orientation does not matter in Scotland, and they could be right. I dare say leaving the panels in their box would make little difference to their output. Academics, of course, are increasingly keen to support government policies. Note that sunny days like this one are extremely rare in Aberdeen. And in winter time, the sun rises about 10:00 and sets around 15:00.

Two years ago I fulminated about the random orientation of solar panels in Aberdeen in a post called Solar Scotland. And this random orientation will undoubtedly lead to serious degradation of the ERoEI. PV enthusiasts will no doubt assume that all solar PV panels are optimally orientated in their net energy analysis while in the real world of Ferroni and Hopkirk, they are not. A good remedy here would be to remove the feed in tariffs of systems not optimally deployed while ending future solar PV feed in tariffs all together.

But how to get this message heard at the political level? David MacKay’s final interview was very revealing:

The only reason solar got on the table was democracy. The MPs wanted to have a solar feed-in-tariff. So in spite of the civil servants advising ministers, ‘no, we shouldn’t subsidise solar’, we ended up having this policy. There was very successful lobbying by the solar lobbyists as well. So now there’s this widespread belief that solar is a wonderful thing, even though … Britain is one of the darkest countries in the world.

If the politicians do not now listen to the advice of one of the World’s most famous and respected energy analysts then I guess they will not listen to anyone. But they will with time become increasingly aware of the consequences of leading their electorate off the net energy cliff.

References

[1] Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk 2016: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: Energy Policy 94 (2016) 336–344

[2] Murphy, D.J.R., Hall, C.A.S., 2010. Year in review-EROI or energy return on (energy) invested. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. Spec. Issue Ecol. Econ. Rev. 1185, 102–118.

[3] Murphy, D.J.R., Hall, C.A.S., 2011. Energy return on investment, peak oil and the end of economic growth. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. Spec. Issue Ecol. Econ. 1219, 52–72.

[4] Prieto, P.A., Hall, C.A.S., 2013. Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution – The Energy Return on Investment. By Pedro A. Prieto and Charles A.S. Hall, Springer.

[5] IEA-PVPS T12, Methodology Guidelines on the Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Electricity – Report IEA-PVPS T12-03:2011.





Another update…….

6 04 2016

20160331_153000Life on the Fanny Farm is moving apace, thanks largely to ‘the Viking’, my big and strong Danish wwoofer, ably assisted by his French girlfriend….. the timing of these guys’ arrival could not have been better, especially if the sawmill arrives soon, followed by the batteries and MPPT I have bought off eBay.

The exterior of the power station is now finished; all the PV modules are up and running, and I have finally put my whirlybird in 20160404_095255the roof.  I’ve opted for a polycarbonate one that allows light into the end of the container opposite the doors, and the amount of extra light exceeds all my expectations.  Its location will also help vent the hydrogen gas that the batteries will offgas, and I know already this will work because the fuel smell from the chainsaws I store there has already disappeared.  And what a relief too, it was a real stink in there on warm days!

I had a wake up call with my Victron inverter…… my bad, I didn’t do my research properly, but as it is called an inverter/charger, I assumed that the output from the PVs could be simply hooked up to the inverter to charge the battery bank.  However, this is not the case, because it charges batteries from the grid only!  I therefore now needed a Maximum Power Point Tracker (MPPT), units often built into inverters these days, just not this one.  As the seller of the inverter told me, the beauty of doing it this way is that you get a state of the art inverter made by a company specialising in inverters, and a state of the art MPPT made by a company that does nothing else too.

In case you’re wondering what a MPPT does, here is a quick explanation…… PV modules Midnite_Classicnowadays produce voltages that are incompatible with battery voltages.  My PVs, for instance, produce 38V Open Circuit, much too high for 12/24V, but not enough for 48V (our nominal voltage).  At the very least, I would have to connect two together (76V) which would be too high for a 48V system, but almost doable with Nickel Iron batteries, though they would be ‘boiling’ most of the time, and I would rather not do that.

Before MPPTs were invented (late 1990’s), charge controllers would reduce this voltage to something that would not destroy your batteries, but in the process some significant amount of power was lost, causing unwanted inefficiencies to creep in.  As it turns out, the Midnite Classic I have bought operates at 150V, the very top of the open circuit range of four of my panels connected in series (two strings), and will process it down to suitable voltage for the Nickel Iron batteries (for which the MPPT can be programmed…), at full power.  And they look so cool, pity no one will see it in the container!

 

Because, I presume, the previous owners never built somewhere to live here, the property was never zoned properly.  Unlike them, I have a plan, and I have started zoning the Fanny Farm, beginning with the orchard.  As I don’t believe anyone, me included, will be able to cut the grass that grows there with fossil fuels in the future, I’m planning to use birds to eat it down for me.  Matt tells me an orchard needs one bird per tree to do this; I find this extraordinary to be honest, because with about a thousand trees planted in the orchard, that’s an awful lot of birds to deal with!

20160320_175248

How to buy gates: $310 for the lot at closing time at the small farm expo!

I was banking on more like 200, and maybe as many as 400, diversifying with chooks, Muscovy ducks, and geese, all grass eating animals.  Will they do the job?  I don’t know either…… but the future has no other alternative, so I’m rolling with it.

Since the geese escaped a month ago, it was clear that I jumped into this too soon, needing a decent bird proof fence around the orchard.  Lots and lots of wing clipping will also be the order of the day, which is why the idea of managing 1,000 birds is mind boggling…..

A local business (the one that sold me gates for peanuts at closing time at the small farm

20160404_135050

The gate to nowhere.. for now.

expo) was offering fencing material the other day for 20% off, so I bought 300m of chicken wire and 100 star pickets.  Matt, who is pulling out literally thousands of treated pine poles out of his massive orchard offered me ‘as many as I want’ (the payoff being I will have to assist him over winter in doing so) and Simon and I took the ute over and filled it up with poles…….

20160404_155223The fencing here needs a lot of attention, but the basics are there for the job to be doable.  I’m just not used to fencing on this scale, the ‘drawback’ of having a large farm.  Thank goodness for wwoofers!

Then, out of the blue, I mentioned to the Viking that I would really like to relocate the steel power pole that sits atop our dam, but that it might be too hard to do.  That was just too much for him, “let’s have a crack at it” said he!

Only trouble is, the bottom of the pole, we discovered, is encased in maybe 300kg of concrete, and even pulling it with the ute, which Annéa yelled out was bending the pole, proved too much….  Matt has now offered to pull it out with his excavator after the apple season is over.  Ah, men and their toys…..!

Never a dull moment around here, let me tell you……





What a tangled web we weave……

28 03 2016

John Weber, whose excellent articles about the fossil fuels needed to make renewable energy I have published here before, led me to a Jo Nova item on her website titled Renewables industry collapsing in Europe.  Nova is the penultimate climate denier, as you will quickly see if you visit the link to her blog. She based her entire article of the following interesting graph……:

eu-investment-renewables

When I see a chart like that, I don’t see the collapse of renewables……..  I see the collapse of Capitalism!  The difference between Nova and I is that I am utterly convinced climate change will destroy civilisation and most of life on Earth as we know it, no matter how much renewable energy systems we build, whereas she thinks AGW is crap, and we’re wasting precious dollars propping up an unnecessary industry.

Now I don’t care how much money we ‘waste’, it’s all monopoly play money; but all the same that chart is interesting because we are continually told about how great Europe’s renewable energy systems are, how Denmark, or Germany, or [insert your favorite EU country here] generated 50% or 100% or whatever of its energy demand (when of course it’s only electricity demand) on some days, as if that was some great breakthrough…..

Nova makes interesting comments, like this……:

Here’s a detail that tells us how big the malinvestment is here. There are nearly half a million people in Europe working in wind and solar to generate expensive electricity:

Jobs are being lost as a result. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, employment in solar photovoltaics in Europe fell by more than a third to 165,000 jobs in 2013, the last year for which it has yet collated figures. Jobs in wind energy rose slightly, by more than 5% in 2013, to nearly 320,000 across the bloc, with more than half of these in Germany.

Imagine if those people were doing something useful?

Yes……. imagine if all those people were doing something useful, like ending consumption and running their own permaculture farms……!

Here’s $329 billion very committed dollars worth of vested interests pushing the Climate Scare. Unlike the fossil fuel industry their profits depend almost entirely on government policy.

As Oil Crashed, Renewables Attract Record $329 Billion

renewables-investment-2004-2015

But does she mention the amount of fossil fuels subsidies…?  Of course not!

Here is a chart of fossil fuels subsidies……:

fossilfuel-subsidy-reforem-by-petar-vujanovic-2-638

Hmmmm……  looks like it’s double the renewables subsidies to me. And that chart is now 3 years old, I can’t help wondering if it’s not doing a cliff dive of its own…. oh wait, it IS!

There’s one thing Nova gets right…:

Whatever you do, don’t graph renewables output in actual megawatts. Don’t graph it in CO2 tons saved. Never ever even mention the number of global degrees of cooling.

The rest is pure bias on her part……