Renewables are far from impossible. Short demonstration on how professors like @RogerPielkeJr (but also e.g. Vaclav Smil and David MacKay) make it sound much harder than it is.
The article quoting @RogerPielkeJr's great math argues we need degrowth and gives an example: energy for Morocco would require 800 km2 of concentrated solar!
Sound like a lot right?
Wrong. It's 0.2% of Morocco and could be done in the desert.
Sound like a lot right?
Wrong. It's 0.2% of Morocco and could be done in the desert.
Then the example by @RogerPielkeJr: the world needs 1500 2.5MW windmills a day to go 100% renewable!
Sounds impossible right?
Well, let's correct the math first.
New windmills are now 10 MW so you need ~400 of those, not 1500.
Sounds impossible right?
Well, let's correct the math first.
New windmills are now 10 MW so you need ~400 of those, not 1500.
He compares with coal and gas we now use but over half the fossil fuel energy is lost as heat while making electricity. Windmills lose hardly any energy that way.
So we need 200 windmills, not 1500.
So we need 200 windmills, not 1500.
Finally it is usually a good idea to mix wind, solar, hydro etc.
So let's say wind+solar 50/50:
all new roofs are covered with solar and 100 windmills a day, not 1500.
So let's say wind+solar 50/50:
all new roofs are covered with solar and 100 windmills a day, not 1500.
To put that into perspective:
Every group of 1 MILLION humans has to erect 3 big windmills per YEAR and cover it's new roofs with solar.
Does that sound impossible to you?
Every group of 1 MILLION humans has to erect 3 big windmills per YEAR and cover it's new roofs with solar.
Does that sound impossible to you?
