In Part 1 of this now three-part Contemplation (see Website, Medium, Substack) I introduced some of the claims made by ‘renewables’ cheerleaders. These include the two I attempted to unmask as false in the initial post: wars are not created as a result of them, and they do not pollute.
As I read the evidence, these assertions not only hide/ignore/rationalise away some uncomfortable negative consequences of our pursuit of ‘renewables’ but state the exact opposite of reality. The increasing and monumental ‘investments’ called for by ‘renewables’ supporters actually result in greater geopolitical competition (including war) over finite resources (including hydrocarbons) and significantly increases pollution of our planet–particularly due to the extractive and industrial processes required for their production.
Two additional assertions made by ‘renewables’ advocates need to be addressed: through their use security is improved; and, jobs are created through their production and thereby greater wealth is generated.
In this post I will deconstruct the claim that security is improved through the use of ‘renewables’.
Security is improved
The claim that security is improved with the use of ‘renewables’ hinges on several arguments. Among them is that energy sources are diversified (thereby making the power grid more resilient) and dependence upon imports is reduced.
I will first focus upon the claim that “import dependence is reduced” and thus improves national ‘security’ through increased independence.
Again, as with all the other claims, this one depends mostly upon one’s perspective and could be argued to be accurate (if you can ignore some inconvenient facts) but only after the first generation of ‘renewables’ have been produced and distributed–leaving unsaid, of course, what occurs after the limited lifespan of this first generation of ‘renewables’ reaches its end.
Our globalised markets are greatly intertwined and co-dependent. While there has been a great clamour by some politicians to bring all industry back to their own nations–and some limited amount of this has occurred–this not only can take years/decades to accomplish but the more daunting reality is that many nations do not have the local/domestic materials/minerals to be able to carry this relocalisation dream out completely independent of others. A reindustrialisation of nations would still depend very significantly upon the importation of materials/minerals not present or economically-feasible to extract and/or refine within a country’s own borders.
There are few widely-scaled and industrial-based products that draw their materials and/or component parts from solely national, let alone local, sources. They depend upon sourcing such materials and parts from across the globe, some within their own national borders but very many not and must be imported (see graphic below that shows the growth rate in exports/imports–all have grown and are expected to continue to grow).
One cannot wave a magic wand and make rare minerals or other required resources appear in one’s backyard, or make the refining of such minerals/material economically-viable within their nation. For example, almost all US oil refining is geared towards heavy, sour crude oil that it mostly imports from Canada, Mexico, and the Persian Gulf region; and the light, sweet oil that is increasingly dominating US extraction must be shipped elsewhere to be refined–primarily to Canada, Mexico, and Europe.
Focussing for the moment just upon solar photovoltaic energy, close to 95% of the world’s panels are manufactured by China (78%) and a number of nearby Asia-Pacific nations (15.3%). There are a number of reasons for this but it primarily rests upon the economic aspects that make it far more profitable to produce panels in China and nearby regions. For example, China has far more lax environmental protection laws so that the ecologically-destructive industrial processes necessary to produce panels are less expensive, and remuneration for workers is far less than that in so-called ‘advanced’ economies.
Looking at the materials/minerals required for solar panels, China also significantly dominates the source locations for the extraction and the refining of these, including: silicon, indium, tellurium, gallium, copper, and zinc. This is not to suggest other nations do not extract and refine these, but not to the extent China currently does. And without decimating environmental regulations, greatly reducing remuneration, and/or investing significantly in necessary infrastructure in those other nations that may hold some significant quantities of reserves, the far less expensive Chinese sources will continue to dominate the global market–at least for the foreseeable future; this may change down the road but it is not what currently takes place.
And then there are the hydrocarbon inputs that are required to extract, refine, and distribute the necessary minerals and materials–to say little about such inputs into the manufacturing of the panels (see Part 1). Hydrocarbon imports are important for almost all nations, either because they have no domestic resources and/or no refining capacity. Even some of the largest oil ‘producers’ still require imports if their resources (e.g., light shale oil) do not match their needs (e.g., fuel oil, diesel) as highlighted above.
To claim that the use of ‘renewables’ decreases dependency upon imports is completely inconsistent with reality. (NOTE: the off-shoring of the ecologically-destructive and polluting processes to produce panels also contributes to the mythos in most (all?) so-called ‘advanced’ economies that ‘renewables’ are ‘clean/green’.)
Now, one could argue that once the initial importing of panels via the global market is accomplished the goal of independence is achieved. Perhaps. What happens, however, when the first generation of these products reaches the end of their lifespan?
Recycling the products in some form of a ‘regenerative/circular’ cycle is put forward as the ‘solution’ to this. What is left out of this suggestion are two major roadblocks. First, some components are extremely difficult if not impossible to recycle due to their manufacturing processes–for example, in solar panels: silicon wafers, polymer layers, thin-film materials; in wind turbines: the massive blades composed of fiberglass or carbon fiber reinforced with resin. Second, recycling is extremely energy-intensive, results in significant pollutants/toxins, and the thermodynamic law of entropy assures loss of material/minerals with each and every generation of recycling. Recycling is no ‘solution’.
So, there is not only a need to scale-up significantly the production of ‘renewables’ to achieve the ‘clean’ energy utopia, but to scale-up massively the recycling and, in fact, to figure out how to recycle all the components–as most components have yet to be recyclable (or economically so). Unfortunately, the majority of ‘renewables’ end up in landfills. This is the reality of ‘clean/green renewables’.
It is nonsensical to argue at this time that the adoption of ‘renewables’ decreases greatly/eliminates dependence upon imports. In fact, the opposite is quite true given the scaling up being discussed by ‘renewables’ advocates. Massive hydrocarbon and mineral inputs are required and mostly come from other nations via imports.
That energy sources are diversified by their use seems undebatable. The greater the number of energy sources employed, the greater the diversification. Yes, adding ‘renewables’ to the world’s other energy sources has created an increasing variety of sources, but not in the replacement fashion many hope for–’renewables’ have been additive to the globe’s energy consumption.
But does having diversified energy sources feeding into a society’s power grid improve security of the system in terms of resilience?
As with most things there are pros and cons to such diversification. Let me focus on the cons as they tend to be left unsaid by ‘renewables’ cheerleaders.
First, adding these additional technologies increases the system’s complexity along with its fragility. Systems that become more complex also become more fragile due to introduced vulnerabilities that include the need for increased maintenance and management, increased reliance upon computer systems, increased ‘costs’, and increased integration of various subsystems that can lead to cascading failures when a problem occurs–the blackout of 2003 that impacted more than 55 million users in northeast North America is a prime example, where it was determined a software ‘bug’ failed to alert operators of a need to redistribute power load when lines in Ohio came into contact with nearby foliage; the resulting power surge spread and caused the shutdown of 508 generating units at 265 power plants, and a subsequent loss of power load of about 80% that took several days to rectify.
Second, the issue of intermittency is significant to any discussion of grid resilience since it is vital that the power load on any electrical network must be balanced immediately with the supply being generated–damage to systems can occur (and lead to cascading failure) if load and supply are not matched precisely.
Wind and solar photovoltaic in particular are intermittent in their harvesting of energy. This intermittency requires a back-up system to provide a constant flow of energy as demanded by our various electrical energy-dependent complexities. The alternative, on-demand systems are mostly hydrocarbon-based, with a handful of massive energy-storage systems (usually battery), that can be called upon at a moment’s notice.
It should be noted that these back-up systems also carry with them further ecological destruction due to the extractive nature of their production. But such systems are integral to ‘renewables’; you cannot have one without the other. And the integration of these subsystems increase the complexity and fragility of the larger electrical power system as discussed above.
Adding complexity to a system, particularly one that is electronic in nature, introduces more and more vulnerabilities and a risk of cascading failures. So, rather than increasing security it would seem that security is decreased with the introduction of diversified energy sources that require complex interconnectivity and management.
And then there’s the level of national/state security and the whole conundrum of resource scarcity, competition over these, and the wars that can and often do result (see Part 1). Such competition over finite resources does the opposite of ensuring security and exposes entire nations to increased insecurity–with the political responses to such issues being to ramp up ‘investments’ in national militaries and associated armament stockpiles furthering resource scarcity due to their monumental ‘costs’ in terms of mineral/material needs (including many that are also necessary for ‘renewables’).
Once again, the reality seems to be the opposite of the supposed beneficial claim: security is not increased due to the pursuit of ‘renewables’ but is actually decreased.
In Part 3 I will discuss the final claim made by ‘renewables’ advocates: jobs are created through their production and thereby greater wealth is generated.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
AND
Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
