After listening to some Tedx speeches and my own observations and common knowledge of science, I have come to understand one of the major problems of renewable energy that I believe will make most of the wind mill and solar panel energy producing processes obsolete within a few years. The ecologists and economists are beginning to team up to look at the real costs brought on by real factors that are engaged in wind mills and solar panels. A few of these are the destruction of habitat for such animals as the desert tortoise and other animals and plants, the killing of birds by the multitude including bald eagles by wind mills, and a huge issue is the disposable costs of caustic substances in solar panels and worn out amounts of materials in wind mills. The largest hurdle for these renewables is called the economy of space or size.
Third world countries use wood, dung and other plant substances for energy. When they begin to industrialize they go from say wood to fossil fuel energy. Why? Because they can transport the liquid fossil fuel energy easier and it takes much less room to store the fossil fuel than the bulky less energy concentrated wood. Fossil fuels carry many times the energy per same volume as wood. Economically it is a no brainer why fossil fuels are difficult to get away from. Everybody admits that industrializing third and second world countries are dependent on fossil fuels at this stage in their development and allowances have been made by international agencies for them. But this is one of the reasons why CO2 release goals are not being met world wide. Not only is it up and coming industrializing nations that are part of the problem, but industrialized nations are also having a difficult time getting off the fossil fuel bandwagon. It is reported that the Keoto nations increased their CO2 output by over one percent and the US output is down in CO2 output in the last measurable year. Although there is some debate concerning the actual amount of destructive gases released through the use of natural gas in the US. Here is the economic reality, ultimately, as societies progress into higher living standards, they go from less concentrated energy sources to energy sources that are more concentrated. The smallest volume source of energy will prove in the end to be the most ecological and the safest form of energy. Going to solar panels and wind mills is going in the opposite direction in size/volume and therefore is a more costly (by far) source of energy than going to a more energy concentrated source. One Tedx ecologist (who likes renewables but is not hopeful for there continued use) stated that it takes 450 times the space for renewables as nuclear energy. He also stated that energy in France is half the price of energy in Germany. Germany has invested heavily in renewables and France chose to invest in nuclear energy. Yes, I believe with the facts we now have that we will be forced to go nuclear by the undeniable facts as given above. Or we can continue to pay more with less encouraging outcomes. The green new deal by AOC was not endorsed by any economists of any political persuasion! This observation should cause some sober questioning of our choices in the energy production arena. I do hold out, however, that should there be a major breakthrough in renewables, where they can compete on the basis of the economy of size, we can return to that renewable. Otherwise nations will be forced by economics and ecology to go with the smallest volume source that gives the greatest amount of energy. Presently that is nuclear, although we can hope that there may be another just as efficient source or a more efficient discovery in the future. Evidently, approximately a pound or two of uranium will produce one person's life time energy needs. I believe that as more facts emerge and are given real consideration in the area of science, ecology and economics that the existing renewables will be rejected.
A few questions to contemplate: Why are we subsidizing solar panels still? If panels were profitable, there would be no need for subsidization. Why has the Navy been using nuclear submarines for over 40 years? I do not find much negative reporting on this use. Could the emotional popularity of renewables be the driving force that keeps this energy source growing in spite of the problems solar panels and wind mills pose?