Our living standards depend on energy density

The global history of rising living standards is a history of harnessing more energy-dense, cheaper, power sources.  We’ve gone from one manpower to one horsepower to fossil-fuelled multi-horsepower internal combustion engines to nuclear fission.

Western political ‘promises’ for more renewables (solar, wind, ‘pumped hydro’) reverses that trend.  2030 and 2050 are ‘promised’ deadlines for displacing most, and then all, fossil-fuelled energy.  These promises shift their economies to renewables – the least energy-dense power sources known.

There are two problems.  First, this ‘back to the future’ renewables rush reverses history, threatening falling living standards.  Second, very low energy density requires huge appropriations of space to deliver any power at all. 

The first problem ignores crucial energy density reasons why living standards have grown. 

The second problem is becoming obvious to those directly affected by the renewables generation, battery storage, and new transmission capacity needed.  Those adversely affected currently exclude most inner-city NIMBYs favouring solar and wind, but somewhere else (rooftop solar panels aside).

Understandably, non-urban voters are fast-becoming NIMBYs, too.  They increasingly protest at having large tracts of the land they own fully or partially expropriated for the installation of massive solar panel arrays, huge land-based wind turbine arrays, near-offshore wind turbine arrays (urban NIMBYs whose views are affected are included here), and new, specialised, transmission lines everywhere.

The environment itself is a NIMBY, too.  It may be the most powerless of all NIMBYs.  Increasingly, native forests are being cleared to accommodate massive renewables facilities because that’s easier than going through lengthy appeals processes with owners of existing cleared/used land.

Reminds me of the Vietnam War line:  we had to destroy the village to save it.

The precise measurement of energy density is a blizzard of scientific measures.  Too long to summarise here.  But some general statements convey the point.  Here are some examples (using USA metrics).

Gasoline is one billion times more energy dense than wind and water power.  It’s ten quadrillion times more energy dense than solar power. 

To store the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline requires over 55,000 gallons of water to be pumped up 726 feet (assuming 90% recycling process efficiency).

‘Pumped hydro’, using energy un-dense renewables, anyone?

There are many more examples.

Terrestrially, nuclear fission is the most energy-dense practical, peaceful, power source.  Substantial terrestrial fusion so far has been achieved only in H-bombs.  Fossil fuels’ energy density comes a distant second.  But they are still far, far ahead of renewables.

Batteries are not power generators at all.  They are inefficient power storage receptacles.

The more policy drives us to the least energy-dense power sources in Australia and elsewhere, the more our living standards are likely to suffer from our own intellectual density.

For what?  Australia is 1 per cent or so of greenhouse gas emissions production, and falling.  If we shut down our economy completely, what global emissions difference would that make?  (i) At best, almost none, or (ii) global emissions increase as supply shifts to more emissions-intensive alternative energy sources.  Northern hemisphere experience says the latter is more likely.

What should we do? 

‘Gaslight’ rational analysis?  Very popular today.  

Ensure power’s all-day, all seasons, reliable and affordable? 

Should politicians/advocates, and short term perceived political considerations, choose the power sources we use? 

At present, in large measure, they’re trying hard to do so, directly and indirectly.

Whether advocates succeed in accelerating closure of existing base-load power generation, and/or in accelerating expansion of intermittent low-density renewables, one thing is clear. 

As now, power customers will pay for less reliability, more intermittency, and more batteries.