"Liquefied natural wind" a substack reflection by Irina Slav

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

Irina's Note: The above term was coined by my friend Tom Kirkman in a conversation about the energy transition on LinkedIn. You have my profuse and eternal gratitude for this jewel, Tom.

https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/liquefied-natural-wind?s=r

Liquefied natural wind

Irina Slav Note: The above term was coined by my friend Tom Kirkman in a conversation about the energy transition on LinkedIn. You have my profuse and eternal gratitude for this jewel, Tom. When a couple of months ago I decided to get really serious about this newsletter I started to catch up on my longer-form energy-related reading. Thanks to generous researchers who contacted me in order to share their work I learned a lot more than I ever thought I might want to learn about renewable energy. And that’s not all. I’ve been a fan of Stephen King’s writing for decades now. There are books I re-read and re-re-read on a regular basis because they are such brilliant works of the horror genre. I never thought non-fiction could read like a horror story but the papers I have been studying read exactly like that. The reason for this is that while facts about certain physical constraints and technological limitations of wind and solar power generation are beginning to leak into the public attention, thanks in no small part to platforms such as Substack, the renewable energy crusade continues unabated. While serious analysts and industry insiders are warning that there are simply not enough raw materials to produce the components necessary for the massive buildout of wind and solar installations, NGO, governments and international organisations continue to advocate for just such a buildout and the sooner, the better. To quote a certain diplomat known for his wit, it’s like talking to a deaf person. I’ve been damned with a pretty active imagination but there are few things I can think of that are scarier than people in positions of power being told that what they are trying to do is, if not impossible, then quite ill-advised, and still trying to do it. Paper after paper detail the exact reasons why the renewable wet dream of the likes of Frans Timmermans, Fatih Birol, and Antonio Guterres has little chance of becoming a reality and still they keep pushing for more panels and more turbines. If this is not horror, I really don’t know what is. It is because of this scary divorce between physical reality and energy ambitions that I almost seriously believe it is only a matter of time until we get to a stage where liquefied natural wind is discussed in all seriousness. In fact, it is not too far-fetched to suggest that there are already individuals among us primed to consume even this sort of absurdity unquestioningly. It may be worth a social media experiment in case someone has the time. I, meanwhile, will move on to another aspect of the horror nature of the transition crusade: the indoctrination aspect. If anything, it is a lot scarier than the constant renewable energy refrain pouring out of the mouths and websites of various government officials and their agencies. I wish I could say I’m using hyperbole to drive my point home more strongly but the truth is, I am indeed quite worried about the state of the world today when it comes to energy, which is why I’m doing what I’m doing here. That, and my desperate need for external validation, obviously. Based on my observations of social media networks, people, especially younger people, seem to be losing their ability to process information critically at a lightning fast rate. I can’t say whether this is the result of shortcomings in the educational system or an aspect of a bigger trend. What I can say is that the biggest lesson I have ever learned in my life was to question the information I receive from the media. Many will say they also question everything they read on Twitter or on Reuters. The reality is that we don’t really do that. We do, quite easily, question information that goes counter to what we believe in but we also tend to seek out and gorge on information that strengthens these beliefs, be it true or not. I’m not inventing the wheel here, we all know about our inherent biases. There are a lot of problems with these biases but the most topical one is that the energy transition narrative is boosting the power of these biases to an extent where critical thinking becomes literally impossible. Some are already there, unfortunately, ready to gobble up even the most insanely stupid statement from the right people, such as Guterres’ tweet about “dangerous radicals”, and at the same time utterly incapable of comprehending the facts of why a wind/solar energy future is impossible at this stage of human evolution and likely to remain impossible for quite a while yet. What’s even worse is that I am pretty certain the secretary-general of the UN himself may not be able — or willing — to comprehend the facts about why a wind/solar energy future is impossible at this stage of human evolution and likely to remain impossible for quite a while yet. And this, friends and neighbours, is as scary as the original film adaptation of Pet Sematary. It is because of this utter ignorance, whether deliberate or not, that I suspect it won’t be too long before liquefied natural wind becomes a thing. In fact, if you think about it, it already has: what do you call compressed hydrogen produced through electrolysis using electricity from wind farms? Liquefied natural wind, of course, that’s what you call it. And you thought it was a joke. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Liquefied Natural Wind? – Irina Slav: Question What You Read in Media April 27, 2022 EnergyNow Media by Irina Slav More from Irina Slav https://energynow.ca/2022/04/liquefied-natural-wind-irina-slav-question-what-you-read-in-media/

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

Based on my observations of social media networks, people, especially younger people, seem to be losing their ability to process information critically at a lightning fast rate. I can’t say whether this is the result of shortcomings in the educational system...

They aren't losing something they never had to begin with. I graduated from high school in the 1970's, and most of the people around me avoided thinking if they could. "What university are you going to?" 'Name of U' "Why are you going?" 'My parents are paying for it'. "What will you do after you graduate?" 'I have no idea'.

I didn't see much evidence the educational system did anything more than digest what was digestible and pass through what wasn't. Kids learned what they wanted, and ignored everything else. Teachers gave them whatever grade represented the class average for effort.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

While serious analysts and industry insiders are warning that there are simply not enough raw materials to produce the components necessary for the massive buildout of wind and solar installations...

We have to start with the population of Earth as of the beginning of the industrial revolution, or at least that part of it which started using fossil fuels. Water powered factories started showing up in England in the 1720's, however coal fired steam engines started showing up in the 1780's. Up until the latter time period, humanity (along with the rest of the ecosystem) had lived its entire existence on renewable resources. The earth's 'carrying capacity' at that time was most likely about 1 billion humans at what would have been considered an acceptable standard of living at the time.

'Serious analysts' and 'industry insiders' work from what they have, and what 'we' (as the industrialized world) have at present. This means that, as far as they know, we do not have enough lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and so forth. In the meantime, I get on 'Eurekalert.org' and read, day after day, how researchers are either finding new sources of these materials, or are finding technologies that avoid dependency on them. These 'experts' all view this as 'pie in the sky' - not worthy of serious consideration.

In the meantime, wind turbines and solar installations continue, riding 'down' the cost curve as scale and manufacturing knowledge increases.

Charts published elsewhere on OilPrice show current percentages of wind-generated power consumption by state, with Iowa getting nearly 2/3rds of its power from wind and Texas getting 20%. Countries like Spain and Portugal have had days where their entire electricity demand is satisfied with wind power.

8 billion households divided by 2.5 persons per household is 3.2 billion households. In the US, a 'standard' residential lot is 50' x 100', or 5000 square feet, or 2000 square feet per person in an average household. 2000 square feet divided by 11 is roughly 200 square meters, for those using that metric.

An average power consumer in the US (meaning one member of a household) consumes about 30Kwh per day or 1 Mwh per month. 30Kwh divided by 5 is 6Kw worth of panels. At 20% energy conversion efficiency, this requires about 30 square meters of panels. US power consumption is vastly higher per capita than nearly anywhere else in the world.

The addition of an electric car would add about another 3 Kwh per day, or increase the panel area from 30 square meters to 33 square meters.

Nickel-iron batteries were invented by Thomas Edison, they are over 100 years old. This does not use any cobalt, although it does use a certain amount of lithium in the electrolyte. Such a battery is inherently safe, both operationally and ecologically, although it doesn't have a very high energy density.

Silicon solar cells are made of silicon, boron, phosphorus, silver, and nitrogen. Silicon panels are composed of cells, copper wiring, aluminum framing, and glass, which is in turn made up of silicon, oxygen, either sodium or boron, and perhaps hydrogen. The 'scarcest' resource in all of this is the silver used in the traces on the cells. Researchers have successfully replaced this with copper.

Nothing in these panels in inherently scarce. The amount of silver in a single cell would be less than that of a dime, so 30 panels x 50 cells per panel = $150 worth of silver. Maybe this is constraining, but a copper substitution definitely isn't.

PhDs for Hire

I can walk into any bookstore and find a book written by an 'expert' who is obviously in the employ of some special interest. The absolute worst of this is in the food industry, where people are forever writing 'exposés' of salt, sugar, fat, sugar substitutes, GMA crops, cattle raised on hormones, etc. Some of this is accurate, some of it omits inconvenient facts, and some of it is outright hit jobs. Some of it simply preys on prejudices or people with too much schooling and not enough common sense.

As an interesting exercise, walk up to an adult in a mall and ask them to explain how scientists define a 'watt-second'. See if anyone knows the Kwh equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. I talk to a lot of people that tell me 'my power bill is paid by an automatic withdrawal. I never look at my power bill'. They don't know what they consume, and they don't even know what they spend on their consumption.

There are a bunch of people 'available' with advanced degrees to tell people whatever you want them to say, as long as the compensation is appropriate.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Utopian Math... Meredith....  Lets try some reality.

Average per day driven is ~30+ miles, but very little on weekend =~40miles/day - inefficiencies converting said power gets ~50miles/day

50 miles driven a day 0.3kWh/mile = 15kWh/car per HOUSEHOLD.  Most households have MORE than 2 cars especially with kids.  That is 30kWh/day minimum if one has teenagers or son/daughter living with you let alone parents/aunt/uncle. 

Has to work in winter. 

Winter heat/lighting load is higher than summer on average in winter so that average of 30kWh/day is actually closer to 50-->60kWh/day where I have lived(Washington/Ohio/New York/Colorado) and that is using NG heating hot water + main heat. Furnace blower runs constantly for the most part.  Radiant heat I have also had and lowers energy bill, but you still have pumps running 24/7 at ~0.5kW/h.  In winter I have NEVER been anywhere close to 30kWh/day. 

Up north, where MOST people live(New England/Midwest), solar average is 1/7th that of summer.  Or another way of saying 4X lower than average.  They get roughly 2/3 what Florida gets on average. 

Down south in say Florida is 5 hours in winter.  = Up north achieve 3 hours/day winter average(I'll ignore all the standard winter haze dropping REAL average lower than this)

So, 30kWh/day for driving + 50kWh for house = 80 kWh/day with 3 hours of sun/day

Do not forget inverter inefficiencies of ~10% and energy storage inefficiencies so 80 -->90kWh/day required

Panel installation requirements is 90kWh/day 3hours/day = 30kW....  Assuming energy storage of  >>100kWh/household for optimum conditions.(utterly unrealistic)

Now add a winter storm of length ~1 week which is NORMAL with ZERO power generated + higher electrical usage due to lights/heat in winter and battery for winter requirements is 700kWh

It is a joke.  Vastly better ripping off all your houses siding and add half a meter of insulation.   This will drop total required down to roughly 60kWh/day required total on 3 hours of sunlight for a requirement of 30kW of panels when new degrading to 20kW when old to cover winter conditions.  If we assume 30 year life and panel manufacturers specs are legitimate.  I have NEVER had a panel last even 50% of rated time frame quoted in spec.  So, in reality, require closer to 40kW of panels.  I personally know of 1 person who went "off grid" and installed their system only to rip it entirely out 7 years later due to degradation of supposed 30 year "GUARANTEED LIFE" panels and to double the size of his installation as it was nowhere even close to requirements and he does not have an electric vehicle yet and he was using wood for heating... If one looks at all the dirt cheap panel prices you keep posting, I believe my friend and where all those used/surplus panels come from... they are Shit is why they are available. 

If in Florida winter and 5 hours/day only need roughly 10kW of panels.

Back to math.  20% eff panels @200W/m^2  30kW/0.2kWm^2 = 150m^2 panels  = 1500 square feet.  Standard BIG panels are 6ftx3ft or ~2m^2 for a nice flat square area perfectly tilted to sun angle of course of 30ft x 50ft  An array of ~5x17(85 panels) WITHOUT trees blocking on PERFECT south facing side of house.... Can one say Roof REMODEL?    Why my off grid solar guy who lives on 20 acres built his array in his pasture by the garden and NOT on his house(trees for shade to keep cool in summer)

Florida house needs ~50^2 panels for long term viability or 500^2 which if one looks on Youtube for those who have solar + Tesla + wife + 2nd car is just about right for what they have said.  Still no kids, but at least closer to reality under perfect conditions tied to the grid doing all the balancing work and NO TREES.  So, ~30 panels to purchase + gigantic inverter a hidden cost most completely miss.  If an inverter claims 6000W, it in reality is 3000W continuous. 

Our cities will be DENUDED of ALL trees and every house will have to have massive renovations to fit new sun angle roofline.  

Yes, requirements drop further south one goes becoming almost placid in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, S. California and anyone living down there without solar... is a moron especially with high summer AC load and high summer Solar radiation source of power.  Down there the batteries are the problem, not the solar.

Possible down south currently?  Yes.  Up north, do not make us all laugh. 

Should all roofs be solar shingles?  At this point?  Yes.  Made my shed roof/siding from used solar panels and it only penciled in because I did 100% of the work. 

Total material cost?  Not really worried about that aspect other than greenie morons getting in the way of mining the materials necessary.  Batteries on the other hand... Yes, big ass problem.  Gargantuan power line requirements to move 100's of gigawatts long distance is a gargantuan problem.  Load balancing is a massive problem and more than likely will solved by giant kinetic energy flywheels everywhere would be my guess. 

Here ends my public basic math announement. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

Oops, just looked at NREL average solar radiation maps in January.  No place in the contiguous USA gets over 4 hours of sun in Winter.  https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-january-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg

So, my 3 hours up north is WAAAAYYYYYY over reality.   The number is so low NREL does not even show it on their updated map.  My recollection for much OLDER maps is that it was around 2 hours for NYC/Chicago where Maine and Western Washington were under 1 hour on average. 

Sorry, you need 50% more solar panels and equivalently LARGER inverters. 

Good Luck.  Enjoy real math.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Oops, just looked at NREL average solar radiation maps in January.  No place in the contiguous USA gets over 4 hours of sun in Winter.  https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-january-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg

So, my 3 hours up north is WAAAAYYYYYY over reality.   The number is so low NREL does not even show it on their updated map.  My recollection for much OLDER maps is that it was around 2 hours for NYC/Chicago where Maine and Western Washington were under 1 hour on average. 

Sorry, you need 50% more solar panels and equivalently LARGER inverters. 

Good Luck.  Enjoy real math.

Fortunately the wind blows in winter, a perfect compliment for solar.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,062]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Oops, just looked at NREL average solar radiation maps in January.  No place in the contiguous USA gets over 4 hours of sun in Winter.  https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-january-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg

So, my 3 hours up north is WAAAAYYYYYY over reality.   The number is so low NREL does not even show it on their updated map.  My recollection for much OLDER maps is that it was around 2 hours for NYC/Chicago where Maine and Western Washington were under 1 hour on average. 

Sorry, you need 50% more solar panels and equivalently LARGER inverters. 

Good Luck.  Enjoy real math.

No place in the contiguous USA gets over 4 hours of sun in Winter.?????

another birdbrain comment from foot in the mouth.......

The map is for 4kWh/m2/day (or 4 hrs of peak sun hours)  of solar irradiance  not for 4 hours of sun a day.......

 

a peak sun hour is a measurement that is alot different than just hows of sun in a day

 

this is why you tilt or track your panels to the sun so you increase the kWH/m2/day  IE your panels do better when tilted to the sun by tracking the sun especially in winter.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

No place in the contiguous USA gets over 4 hours of sun in Winter.?????

another birdbrain comment from foot in the mouth.......

The map is for 4kWh/m2/day (or 4 hrs of peak sun hours)  of solar irradiance  not for 4 hours of sun a day.......

 

a peak sun hour is a measurement that is alot different than just hows of sun in a day

 

this is why you tilt or track your panels to the sun so you increase the kWH/m2/day  IE your panels do better when tilted to the sun by tracking the sun especially in winter.

Ah, 3rd/4th grade divisional math is too difficult.  Poor guy. Need daddy to hold your hand? 

Normal radiation on the earth is ~1KW per HOUR under normal conditions and by my link, no where in the contiguous USA in January does one even get total horizontal radiation FROM THE SUN in January of 4kWh per DAY.  So lets go back to 4th grade and can you divide 4KWh/1KW  = 4hours sun potential....

Class is ended.  Did you graduate? 

Yes 4/1 is still 4 last I checked.