Can renewables replace fossil fuels?

Popular dream but impossible reality

Climate activists claim a “transition” from “fossil fuels” to so-called “renewables” is necessary to prevent a climate catastrophe, with internal combustion engine (ICE) driven vehicles to be replaced by electric vehicles (EVs) an essential part of the “transition”. While the “climate catastrophe” claim is nonsense, it is useful to examine whether such a “transition” is theoretically possible.

A few background facts are useful. The surface of the Earth is approximately 500 million square kilometers of which 130 million square kilometers is Earth’s land mass. Of that 130 square kilometers, 40 million is forested, 40 million is farmland, 16 million is permanently snow-covered, and about 20 million host our cities and towns. That leaves 14 million potentially available for wind and solar “farms” or approximately 3.5 billion acres.

Current global energy consumption is equivalent to about 160,000 terawatt hours, more or less equal to just over 18 terawatts of generating capacity running twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. Not all energy is consumed as electric power today, but expressing energy usage in terawatt hours (TWh) is a sensible way to express demand since the “transition” to “renewables” assumes electric power replaces all other sources.

Source: Our World in Data

Convert 1 billion vehicles in use worldwide EV’s with an average use of 2,268 KwH annually and generating capacity has to increase by 2.3 terawatts to power those vehicles. With lesser-developed economies now developing, energy demand seems to be growing by 2-3% per year and at that rate global energy demand will rise to the equivalent of over 40 terawatts of generating capacity within the next generation.

Now lets looks at how much land is needed to host the “renewables” if they are to become our primary source of energy. Existing wind farms need from 40 acres to 200 acres per megawatt of generating capacity. I will use an average of 120 acres per megawatt for this analysis. A terawatt is 1 million megawatts so a terawatt of generating capacity would need 120 million acres and the total world energy consumption (assuming all is provided by electric power with other sources having “transitioned”) would require 2.4 billion acres, about 68% of the available land mass. Earth’s land mass is insufficient to meet the 4.8 billion acres needed to host projected energy needs of 40 terawatts 25 years from now if wind were the only “renewable” source. Wind power cannot power the world and its use is inimical to other demands for land.

Solar is another popularly touted “renewable” option. The average solar farm needs about 8 acres of land per megawatt (8 million acres per terawatt) so a mere 160 million acres are needed to supply Earth’s current energy consumption, growing to 320 million acres in 25 years. That is about six times the land mass of United Kingdom and more than double the land mass of France. Much of the land available for solar farms has a climate problem of its own - seasonal snow, hailstorms, occasional hurricanes and tornadoes and the risk of floods. Solar farms don’t work well covered in snow, smashed to pieces by weather or under water.

As developing countries industrialize, more energy will be needed. While theoretically possible to cover virtually all Earth’s land mass (not forested, covered by snow, used for agriculture or populated by humans) with wind mills and solar panels, the reality is that moutainous regions, rivers, lakes, and canyons or for that matter parklands aren’t really suitable sites for “renewables” and Earth’s population keeps growing increasing the need for more land for homes and for farms. It should be obvious that the evangelical dedication to “renewables” just won’t work. For “renewables” to have a chance, the wind farms would have to go and the alarmist crowd would place all their bets on solar.

The problem with solar is that converting the sun’s energy to electrical energy and then to work, substantial amounts of that energy is “trapped” and cannot escape to space. Solar will trap more of the sun’s energy than CO2 could possibly prevent from escaping to space. The long wave infrared energy (LWIR) in the 15 micron band that is capable of interacting with CO2 is already close to saturation and no amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase that interaction beyond 100% of the LWIR radiated. While CO2’s ability to interact with LWIR is limited to the amount of 15 micron LWIR available to “trap”, there is no limit on the amount of energy from the sun that can be similarly “trapped” by solar panels converting that energy to work other than the Carnot efficiency of the process and the related degree of entropy. Of course, the portion of solar energy converted to heat will be ultimately be radiated towards space. It should be obvious to anyone with a calculator or even pen and paper that reducing atmospheric CO2 levels will have a marginal impact on any potential “warming” more than offset by the “warming” resulting from heat captured by solar panels being prevented from escape to atmosphere.

Fortunately, sooner or later the left wing activists will have to admit that CO2 is harmless and any changes in global climate will compel adaptation, not a pretense that mankind can alter nature. Isn’t it time for Canada to abandon the “renewables” nonsense and face reality? Fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be around for decades to come and when the fossil fuels run out, nuclear is the only option to generate enough power for Earth’s population to operate reasonably.

I expect that admission will come only after left wing leaders propel their economies into a massive energy shortages, energy prices rise to levels that are unaffordable for most people, and, millions suffer from the result. In the interim, expect to see the rise of nuclear power despite its current pariah status since it is the one “renewable” that can be expanded to a degree needed to power the planet, but will come at a cost that will make harmless fossil fuels a favorite choice again.

I have been criticized for speaking out about the frailty of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, with many claiming I am a conspiracy theorist who thinks thousands of scientists are colluding to achieve a political objective. That is laughable since the hard data indicate that most physicists agree that AGW is wrong, and I agree with the pundit who said it was unnecessary to find conspiracy for movements whose existence is adequately explained by stupidity. AGW qualifies.