October 14, 2021

So-called renewable energy and electric vehicles hit a wall of impossibilities long ago. As exploiters cash in on public gullibility, technology gets more expensive and less practical. The lower classes pay exorbitant prices for electricity, while power mongers get trillions of dollars for producing the decadence.

Layers of propaganda overwhelm information with electricity. Energy systems are being turned into rubble through fraud. Communication is shameless in hyping related subjects without clarifications.

One of the frauds is the pretense that "renewable" means unlimitedly available. It is not. Wind and solar are so dilute and impossible to recover that very few locations are even considered as sources, and the most exploitable sources are already used up.

That's why off-shore wind is being (very slowly) developed — because nothing left on land is suitable, while off-shore will never be more than a drop in the bucket, and it is much more expensive than on-land wind power.

An erroneous assumption that is driving the social order off the rails is that electricity is the answer to everything. The opposite is the truth.

An underlying assumption is that electricity is the most efficient form of energy. Electricity is the most wasteful form of energy, because it loses large amounts of energy to heat, as linearized electrons bump into the nuclei of metals.

Electricity is only suitable for specialty purposes, not large scale purposes. It is too difficult to manage and inefficient for large scale purposes such as transportation.

The only answer to the energy problem is responsible nuclear energy with clean coal for the transition. Of course, nuclear means electricity; but nuclear is the only highly concentrated source of energy with long-term availability.

One of the motives for the waste, fraud and abuse is that power mongers want energy and transportation to be impractical for most people, so the few can dominate the many.

Electricity never will be suitable for transportation; which means other sources of energy should be conserved for transportation.

Natural gas (mostly methane) should not be wasted for generating electricity, because it could be used for transportation. It is sometimes used directly in vehicles, usually small trucks.

Nuclear powered autos could have been created during the 1960s or 70s; but a corrupt world could not meet the demands including responsible handling and disposal of nuclear waste. Instead of improving the social standards, the standards are being trashed with wanton fraud for energy technology which can never be produced but is supposedly on the verge of solving all problems in the future. Know-nothings tell us so and allow no criticism of their frauds.

Petroleum is high density energy. Nuclear, more so. Electricity is extremely low density energy. That means low density after electricity exists, not just while the energy is wind and sunshine. Linearized electrons must be surrounded by massive amounts of metal. Petroleum doesn't have to be surrounded by anything but a storage tank.

This fact is creating a national security danger. There is nowhere near enough transmission lines to meet existing needs. Authorities have known this for decades. But nothing can be done about it, because it takes huge amounts of money and is environmentally destructive to put the amounts of metal in place that electricity needs to be surrounded by.

For this reason, transmission lines cost more than renewable sources by the time the lines get 300 miles long. Not only is the amount of metal too expensive, ravaging the environment is needed to put the metal in place as sources and lines.

A recent project is producing windmills in Montana and sending the electricity to Las Vegas and Los Angeles with transmission lines 700 and 1,000 miles long. The project has been held up for ten years because of the destructiveness of the long lines.

The problem of transmission lines is unsolvable at this time, even while electricity is being used for specialty purposes. Fossil fuels including transportation use six times as much energy as presently exists as electricity. That means present electricity must be increased by a factor of six to electrify transportation and other fossil fuel uses.

Look what journalists are saying: They are saying the electrical system needs to be strengthened for electric vehicles. That's like saying a person needs to jump more than one foot high to get to the moon. The required strengthening process of the electrical system is never going to occur. It's up against a wall at this time.

On top of that, renewables are making the problem worse for transmission lines, because those sources are spread out and a long ways from consumers. Old fashioned sources were located near the cities to eliminate long lines. There is an immeasurable difference between locating a plant near a city and locating it a thousand miles away—about a thousand times as much difference in the length of the lines.

So multiply the factor of six times one thousand, and six thousand times as much transmission line distance would be needed for renewables to electrify the transportation system, if the sources of renewable electricity existed, and they don't exist as harvestable wind or sunshine. Doubling the transmission lines is never going to occur let alone multiplying times six thousand.

This point about metal is only part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that electricity is vastly less efficient in its use than other sources of energy. This problem is related to the metal problem. When electrons go through metal, they produce a lot of heat, which is wasted energy.

Typically, 70% of electricity is wasted getting to consumers due to heat production, not only in wires but in devices such as transformers and switching and controlling mechanisms.

The calculated heat loss is this: Between generating electricity and using electricity, long transmission lines have 50% loss built in (to reduce the mass of metal), while short lines have 20% loss built in. High voltage transformers lose about 10% due to heat; and mid-level or end-use transformers lose about 30-50%. Usually one or more of each are used. Long lines salvage 50% x 90% x 70% = 32% (68% loss). A toaster would be losing the 70%.

The source that generates electricity can never be more than 40% efficient. Adding that loss to the 32% results in only 13% salvaged.

Then at least 60% is lost in every, no exceptions, transformation of electrical energy into kinetic energy, which means electric motors. It's a requirement of laws of physics. But that amount is theoretical optimum. Under operating conditions, 25% efficiency is the usual result for electric motors.

So the loss for an electric vehicle (when ignoring source loss) is the 32% (above) x 25% = 8% salvaged (92% lost to heat.)

That means electric vehicles get the equivalent of 5-10 miles per gallon. But the bureaucrats claim electric vehicles get the equivalent of 100-150 miles per gallon. One major reason is because they claim electric motors are 96% efficient. No one should be that stupid and be employable. All electric motors have fans with them for cooling. Someone calculated the resistance in the wires for electric motors and said that it creates the total loss. They left out the transformation into kinetic energy, which can never be more than 40% efficient and is 25% for vehicles.

But so-called renewable energy (as solar and wind) is much more wasteful than other sources, because much longer lines and ineffective back-up systems are needed (which in actuality prevent the whole concept from existing). So the electricity loss alone would be at least 95% for such renewables, not to mention the exorbitant expense of the hardware and environmental damage.

No one can get past 15% renewables as solar and wind, because the fluctuations are too rapid and extreme for back-ups. Germany had to resort to coal plants and England tried to resort to nuclear at 15% renewables for that reason. (But they have to lie to the greens and know-nothing journalists who imposed the whole concept onto society like a bunch of totalitarians.)

This waste of energy is going through the brains of uninformed persons as a nonexistent problem while pretending that no carbon dioxide is produced with so-called renewable energy. Regardless of whether there are alternatives, a wall of impossibilities is what is being promoted as the answer. Maybe getting responsible with nuclear energy would be a better answer.

External Link: