June 30, 2021

The public is missing the scope of the task. Perhaps surprisingly, so are the engineers. There have been engineers with a proper perspective on the technological limitations, but they disappeared, as the subject was overwhelmed by other forces.

There are two forces that came to the surface and overwhelmed rationality on renewable energy. It was primarily uninformed journalists who ran away with the subject. They were followed by incompetents in science. The result was unlimited imagination totally disconnected from real science and engineering.

One of the counter arguments to the criticism is that science and engineering are designed to get things right and could not get anything that wrong. But consider the above paragraph; real science and engineering were not part of the process that got society where it is at. On top of that, engineers do not evaluate interacting factors; they simply apply formulas to extremely narrow tasks, while the scientists have nothing but physics, which is not real science as explained elsewhere.

This point was made clear by the latest aircraft carrier which was supposed to have eight elevators for moving aircraft to the deck, but they didn't work, and a single elevator had to be patched in later. The elevators didn't work, because they were designed for magnetic lifts, while there is no such thing as a magnetic lift. Engineers could not evaluate that point. Why were there no scientists to inform them? Because physics is not real science, and power mongers suppress or remove real scientists from physics.

If magnetic lifts can be built into an aircraft carrier without existing, renewable energy can be constructed with no redeeming value. It should be evident by now that there is no redeeming value to so-called renewable energy. The results are in. Why are the results invisible to society? Because even the simplest elements of science and engineer for such a complex project are overwhelmed by propaganda flowing from totally incompetent persons who promote the subject.

What results are showing and any real scientists or informed engineer should see in the results is that one, there is no net gain in renewable energy, and two, the available sources of such energy are already used up. Germany had no choice but to turn to coal after trying everything possible with solar and wind sources. The British turned to nuclear. Some countries have been exporting wind energy, as if the supply were abundant, but the opposite is true: The sources are so worthless that dumping the excesses when sporadically available was necessary.

Everywhere the results are visible they show total failure in the supply of renewables as solar and wind. Those sources have to be given priority over coal so every watt gets used by forcing coal plants to absorb the variations. The huge expense is absorbed into utility costs which skyrocket where such renewables are used.

Look at availability. Why are windmills being built over the seacoasts? Because there is more wind there and fewer disruptive effects. There isn't much seacoast available.

Look at distribution. Why can't Germany get its wind power sent from the seacoast to the southern part of the country where it is needed? Because the transmission lines are too disruptive and expensive.

These problems show up at the infinitesimal starting point with no significant transportation being added to the process. To electrify existing transportation would require multiplying the existing electrical infrastructure by a factor of six. That means six times as many sources for the electricity but much more than six times as many transmission lines, because renewables are spread out and hundreds or thousands of miles from point of use. Nothing resembling it is allowed to devastate the environment, and there isn't enough copper in the ground to be mined for the purpose.

The public is given the impression that electrical energy is extremely efficient including the claim that electric vehicles get an equivalent of 100 to 150 miles per gallon. The opposite is true. Electricity is extremely inefficient. About 70 to 90% of electrical energy disappears as heat before getting to consumers, while another 70 to 90% is lost to heat in the application devices. Long transmission lines have 50% loss built in and short lines 20% as a method of reducing the amount of metal required, since transmission lines are more than half of the cost of remote projects.

Bureaucrats claim electric motors get 96% efficiency from which they extrapolate absurd results for electric vehicles. No transformation from electrical energy to kinetic energy can get more than 40% efficiency at normal temperatures, with the usual result being 25%.

It appears circumstantially that the 96% figure resulted from evaluation of internal wiring of motors. The wires lose energy to heat, and careful designing can reduce that effect. Then some idiots assumed the wire loss was the only factor determining total efficiency with no evaluation of the transformation into kinetic energy.