Renewable Energy: The Vision And A Dose Of Reality

[aerius]

Now you are getting me pissed.

Yeah? And? Ask me if I give a shit.

I address every and any point you make and you just skip whole sections rehashing shit I've already covered?
Check out the rules on this forum you should know them by now.
You made the claims, you either prove them or concede them. I'm not here to do your homework.

Why should I answer when you're just deliberately mis-representing the arguments. What J and myself claim is that the vision for renewables, which is to become the primary source of energy and provide 80% or so of energy needs ain't gonna happen. You've somehow taken this to mean that we're saying all renewables are fucked, and we should just shitcan renewables. Which is a claim which has never been made.

Goals and visions change all the time. Do you really think that if germany thought it couldn't remain competetive to maintain these goals they will go ahead anyway?

Who the fuck knows? Dumber things have happened before.

a) The existing power sources include renewables. They are already there, plenty of them as per the cite you provided. So when I say with already existing power sources then how the fuck can you try to make that into a point trying to exclude renewables?

Fine. Let me rephrase that. Without the massive buildout in renewables required to meet the 80% goal. But I think you already know that and decided to deliberately mis-interpret my statement.

b) The system does not, I repeat does not, remain simpler and more robust by not investing in so called smart grids. All distribution benefits. Even the distribution of nuke, coal, gas and whatever.
This is what I have been beating you and J with, the ROI on smart grids DOES NOT RELY ON POWER SOURCE. Yes it gives a better ROI on badly managed fluctuating ones, but they are not a requirement for such investments to meet ROI.
Smart means smart, not investing would be dumb.

Once again, no one ever claimed "don't invest in smart grids" you stupid fuck.

c)The interconnection to natural gas point I can't even deduce from dumb to normal text. What are you trying to say?

Yup, someone didn't read the BNU paper, that someone would be you. Let me summarize it for you. To provide for energy storage, surplus power is used to electrolyze water, the hydrogen is then reacted with carbon to form natural gas which is then stored in the existing natural gas infrastructure. That gas is then burned in combined cycle generating stations to keep the lights on and provide heating for buildings when renewables aren't generating enough power. Without the gas plants, connection points, and generating stations, renewables won't work as a primary energy source since they can't provide on-demand power. That's all in the paper, which you didn't read.

[Sky Captain]

b) The system does not, I repeat does not, remain simpler and more robust by not investing in so called smart grids. All distribution benefits. Even the distribution of nuke, coal, gas and whatever.
This is what I have been beating you and J with, the ROI on smart grids DOES NOT RELY ON POWER SOURCE. Yes it gives a better ROI on badly managed fluctuating ones, but they are not a requirement for such investments to meet ROI.
Smart means smart, not investing would be dumb.

Connecting existing power grids with relatively little intermittent renewable energy generation capacity will be far easier and cheaper than building connections that can pump dozens of GW of power across the continent. Such connections will be required if solar and wind will become dominant energy source. Otherwise too often one region will have surplus power they have no use for and other region in the same time have power deficit.
Consider for example in the future there are 300 GW of wind generation capacity installed in North Sea region and weather is stormy, all wind generators run near their maximum output however there is demand only for 100 GW at that moment. If there aren't connections that can transfer the surplus somewhere else you have to shut down most of the wind generators when they are most profitable or the grid will blow up. With conventional generation such situation would never arise because supply is always matched to demand.

[Spoonist]

Now you are getting me pissed.

Yeah? And? Ask me if I give a shit.

Obviously you do cause you are getting pissed to, your language and posture is changing along with mine. Why do you even try to obfiscate such things?

I address every and any point you make and you just skip whole sections rehashing shit I've already covered?
Check out the rules on this forum you should know them by now.
You made the claims, you either prove them or concede them. I'm not here to do your homework.

Why should I answer when you're just deliberately mis-representing the arguments. What J and myself claim is that the vision for renewables, which is to become the primary source of energy and provide 80% or so of energy needs ain't gonna happen. You've somehow taken this to mean that we're saying all renewables are fucked, and we should just shitcan renewables. Which is a claim which has never been made.

Fuck that bullshit. I've been abundantly clear about which parts of the claims I object to. With a header including "with a dose of reality" you are bound to get flack for unsubstantiated shit. From my first post
"That is ignorant on a vast scale. We have utilized renewable energy for as long as we have been creating human civilizations. We are still doing this and are expanding the concepts today. You would have to use a pretty damn silly definition of "as envisaged by its proponents" to make that stick. "
Then you tried to defend that claim, so how about we go back to what I said in response?
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3729140
1) As I stated above, I'm in the automation business, specifically simulation softwares. The company I work for though is very much in the energy business.
2) Proof of what? I did strikethrough on about twenty-thirty sentences, how about you pick one and we go from there?
3) Which thing did you think would be disproven by the capacity numbers? Please explain your line of thinking otherwise its impossible to argue for or against it.
4) You are mixing issues that have nothing to do with eachother.
5) You can't falsify a whole business segment by pointing at a single project or installation. Just like you can't say car manufacturing will never work because some car models didn't.
6) What do you want me to explain about windfarms that you don't understand? Feasability studies? ROI calculations? Governement subsidies? The difference between euro and americas politics?
7) The so called european supergrid is not a requirement for larger windfarms or even for huge ones. Where did you get that silly idea?
8} The so called european supergrid is just a vision. It is not a project. So that is a huge strawman if you want to disprove the validity of specific energy sources. Especially since such a vision would work equally well with other power sources.
Most of that vision is pure speculation on extrapolation from existing market trends anyway.
9) You do realise that if country X, Y and Z do a grid investment with a good ROI etc. Then whether or not the polititians claim that it is part of the "future euro supergrid" then that has zero relevance as a pro-con to the project itself?
Like if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Offshore_Grid is a viable project just for opening the energy markets of those involved, regardless of type of energy supplied into it. If the polititians want to get some extra EU grants or voter credibility by adding certain currently popular key words then that is their business, but it does not in any way reduce the viability of the project itself.
10) Burden of proof. You do realise that the burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, right? J made the claims, you made the claims, the article made the claims. I simply pointed out the ones which where unsubstantiated, unfounded or aimed at strawmen.
11) Whether or not the vision of the so called european supergrid is viable or not is not an argument in itself against renewable power sources. Please explain why you back this strawman.

Now if you had actually not run away like a coward we could have had a productive discussion by addressing those numbers and extrapolating from there. But you can see that all the arguments are basically already there. For you to say that I'm misrepresenting you is childish when I quote you every time and adress every and any argument you make. If you didn't use silly claims and irrelevant data/studies to try to make your argument we wouldn't be here.
I am not arguing that you said "all renewables are fucked, and we should just shitcan renewables" I'm arguing against specific quotes and claims you have been making throughout. No misrepresentation necessary.
Just like your argument from the US stats was false. Or your use of the death numbers in the forbes article was baroque.

So by which silly definition of "as envisaged by its proponents" are you using to make that first claim I argued against stick? The green parties and interests of europe? Then yes, that is a pretty silly definition of renewable energy proponent in a discussion about the global energy market.

Goals and visions change all the time. Do you really think that if germany thought it couldn't remain competetive to maintain these goals they will go ahead anyway?

Who the fuck knows? Dumber things have happened before.

Ah, so your argument relies on Germany being idiots and dumb shit happens?
Yes dumb shit happens, but we adapt and overcome. The EU have the biggest grid supplying companies, for your scenario to work they would have to be idiots as well. But this still disregards the "they are already meeting targets hence higher goals" argument which you conveniently ignored. The total output is still positive. The trend is positive. Germany has the money. I agree that the targets are too ambitious due to my personal dislike of transforming food production into energy production and labeling such a practice as "renewable energy". But since your arguments haven't been against biofuels - lets not go there.
And this is still trying to blame a business segment for the workings of democracy. How do you propose we handle infrastructure decisions in democracies? Politics will be run by politicians, deal with it. The industry is.

a) The existing power sources include renewables. They are already there, plenty of them as per the cite you provided. So when I say with already existing power sources then how the fuck can you try to make that into a point trying to exclude renewables?

Fine. Let me rephrase that. Without the massive buildout in renewables required to meet the 80% goal. But I think you already know that and decided to deliberately mis-interpret my statement.

Actually I'm happy with that. Such rephrases is what I'm actually after. It sounds much more reasonable than what you said before. I don't give a shit about winning or losing debates, but I do give a shit about what claims are made and how we back them up. Hence why I appreciate rephrases like that. *tips hat*

b) The system does not, I repeat does not, remain simpler and more robust by not investing in so called smart grids. All distribution benefits. Even the distribution of nuke, coal, gas and whatever.
This is what I have been beating you and J with, the ROI on smart grids DOES NOT RELY ON POWER SOURCE. Yes it gives a better ROI on badly managed fluctuating ones, but they are not a requirement for such investments to meet ROI.
Smart means smart, not investing would be dumb.

Once again, no one ever claimed "don't invest in smart grids" you stupid fuck.

Which wasn't what I argued that you claimed. Your quote which you snipped out was "Without renewables, the required connections aren't as extensive and remain limited to the electrical grid itself. There's no interconnection to the natural gas plus steam/co-generation systems. The system remains simpler and more robust." In that simplified form that is simply a wrong statement. The smart grid visions which you have argued against before, like the so called euro supergrid, doesn't require an 80% target to make ROI or feasability sense. So your mixing the issues which does not rely on each other is a flawed argument.
Let's include the rephrase and add my own rewrite to what you said.
"Without the massive buildout in renewables required to meet a 80% goal, like germany's, then the required investments in grid infrastructure aren't as extensive and remain more limited to the electrical grid itself making for a more robust system. The system would also be simpler if you can exclude the need for energy storage ideas like elecrolyzing water."
Then you'd be making a statement that I could agree with. Now can you spot the difference? If so go back and recheck what I did the strikethrough on. Pick any of the sentances like I already asked you, thrice now, and we could expand it just like that to see if we agree.
Hence my middle-ground non hyperbole pragmatic post to you and J.

c)The interconnection to natural gas point I can't even deduce from dumb to normal text. What are you trying to say?

Yup, someone didn't read the BNU paper, that someone would be you. Let me summarize it for you. To provide for energy storage, surplus power is used to electrolyze water, the hydrogen is then reacted with carbon to form natural gas which is then stored in the existing natural gas infrastructure. That gas is then burned in combined cycle generating stations to keep the lights on and provide heating for buildings when renewables aren't generating enough power. Without the gas plants, connection points, and generating stations, renewables won't work as a primary energy source since they can't provide on-demand power. That's all in the paper, which you didn't read.

Lets see, did you mention energy storage - nope. Did you mention electrolyzation - nope. Did you mention a source - nope.
Ah, your lack of communicating must be due to me not having read that paper... Yea right, and sandman is a guardian along with father christmas saving your dreams from the nightmare king.

[Spoonist]

b) The system does not, I repeat does not, remain simpler and more robust by not investing in so called smart grids. All distribution benefits. Even the distribution of nuke, coal, gas and whatever.
This is what I have been beating you and J with, the ROI on smart grids DOES NOT RELY ON POWER SOURCE. Yes it gives a better ROI on badly managed fluctuating ones, but they are not a requirement for such investments to meet ROI.
Smart means smart, not investing would be dumb.

Connecting existing power grids with relatively little intermittent renewable energy generation capacity will be far easier and cheaper than building connections that can pump dozens of GW of power across the continent. Such connections will be required if solar and wind will become dominant energy source. Otherwise too often one region will have surplus power they have no use for and other region in the same time have power deficit.
Consider for example in the future there are 300 GW of wind generation capacity installed in North Sea region and weather is stormy, all wind generators run near their maximum output however there is demand only for 100 GW at that moment. If there aren't connections that can transfer the surplus somewhere else you have to shut down most of the wind generators when they are most profitable or the grid will blow up. With conventional generation such situation would never arise because supply is always matched to demand.

This is sensible, pragmatic and I fully agree. I don't think a mass market power grid across europe/africa that relies on solar and wind only as the dominant type of renewables is ROI feasable nor desirable. But I do think that a continued expansion of solar and wind is ROI feasable and desirable in the global energy market. But we must adjust to current geopolitics.

However, the issue itself is also technically solvable with todays tech without going into pie in the sky stuff, even by using other solutions than mass storage or mass transfers.

I've also seen some very interesting business concepts for new industry models that lie close to wind farm production. To turn on production when there is an overcapacity in the system and to go dormant when it isn't. By negotiations the energy price is so good the cost in standby is negligable compared to rising energy prices. Can't go into details but that is definately also a trend worth watching.

[aerius]

Connecting existing power grids with relatively little intermittent renewable energy generation capacity will be far easier and cheaper than building connections that can pump dozens of GW of power across the continent. Such connections will be required if solar and wind will become dominant energy source. Otherwise too often one region will have surplus power they have no use for and other region in the same time have power deficit.
Consider for example in the future there are 300 GW of wind generation capacity installed in North Sea region and weather is stormy, all wind generators run near their maximum output however there is demand only for 100 GW at that moment. If there aren't connections that can transfer the surplus somewhere else you have to shut down most of the wind generators when they are most profitable or the grid will blow up. With conventional generation such situation would never arise because supply is always matched to demand.

This is sensible, pragmatic and I fully agree. I don't think a mass market power grid across europe/africa that relies on solar and wind only as the dominant type of renewables is ROI feasable nor desirable. But I do think that a continued expansion of solar and wind is ROI feasable and desirable in the global energy market. But we must adjust to current geopolitics.

Congratulations, you're in complete agreement with the OP. Which is that using renewable wind & solar as the primary energy source isn't feasible or desirable. So what the fuck are you arguing over again?

However, the issue itself is also technically solvable with todays tech without going into pie in the sky stuff, even by using other solutions than mass storage or mass transfers.

Really. So why is it that the BNU and DENA papers, along with Paul-Frederik Bach (look up his credentials one day) all state that extensive grid connections to enable mass transfers of power along with large scale storage solutions are required for renewables to be used as the primary energy source? And in fact they all state that the deployment of renewables will stall out if the required grid extensions aren't made.

Right now there's an installed capacity of somewhere between 65-70GW for renewables in Germany, which provides somewhere between 20-25% of its energy needs depending on weather. To reach the required 80% renewable target would imply around 3-4 times the current installed capacity, neglecting losses for conversion & storage. Peak demand is around 80GW so if it happens to be windy & sunny at the time you'll have 130GW that needs to go somewhere, either into storage or exports. Which is why there's massive grid links in the 60-80GW range in those papers.

[D.Turtle]

Really. So why is it that the BNU and DENA papers, along with Paul-Frederik Bach (look up his credentials one day) all state that extensive grid connections to enable mass transfers of power along with large scale storage solutions are required for renewables to be used as the primary energy source? And in fact they all state that the deployment of renewables will stall out if the required grid extensions aren't made.

I may be blind, so please point out where it says that in the BMU paper.

[aerius]

From the BMU paper
http://www.pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/bmu_leit ... 010_bf.pdf

Section 4.3

4.3 Storage facilities are in general suitable for compensating for fluctuating generation. Short-term storage facilities, such as pumped-storage plants, CAES and batteries, can store excess power or close gaps for a few hours in the electricity supply caused by low wind and solar generation. However, their capacities are limited. Long-term storage facilities with large capacities (several TWh) are required to balance out fluctuations in power systems that are predominantly based on RE. Long-term storage in combination with other compensating measures is the only way to make wind and solar power manageable enough that conventional generating stations can be replaced permanently, and large quantities of electricity from renewables can be made available for other sectors of consumption (such as electric mobility or heat pumps). Besides very large reservoir capacities abroad, and in future pumped-storage capacities (e.g. Norway) chemical storage of power from renewables is another option. Hydrogen and methane as fuels are capable of overcoming the limits set by fluctuating RE availability and guaranteeing a secure supply at any time. Small percentages of hydrogen produced from renewables can be transported through natural-gas pipelines, or it can be produced locally (such as at filling stations). Methane from renewables can be fed into the existing gas pipelines in natural-gas quality, but this requires the additional conver-sion step of methanation. All other less expensive options for direct use or intermediate storage of electricity from renewables should be fully exploited first, as generation of hydro-gen or methane is inevitably accompanied by losses that cause additional costs.

Paul-Frederik Bach's commentary
http://www.pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/pfb_a_ne ... _09_06.pdf

Page 2 has a map of the required grid transfer capacities required to meet the 2050 targets for the baseline scenerio.

Page 5 has the following

- Germany cannot remain self-sufficient in electricity supply. Import of electricity will increasingly be necessary after 2030. Both production capacity abroad and transmission facilities must be secured in due time. In Germany a well balanced mix of technologies including renewables, conventional power plants, storage facilities, grid extensions and demand side management will be needed in order to maintain security of supply.
- A complete integration of renewables in the power system is not possible. The production from renewables and CHP in one hour can exceed the electricity demand by 70 GW in 2050. A part of this production can be exported or stored. In case of delayed grid reinforcements or limitations in other countries the challenges within Germany will be even harder.
- Grid extensions are urgently necessary in both transmission and distribution systems. The extensions are already now considerably behind schedule.

[ryacko]

Basically, Hawaii is going to be the best example of why renewables aren't feasible.

Did you read the article?

I read it as: rapid adoption has lead to some problems, measures have been (and are being) taken to address those problems, and Hawaii is forging ahead with more renewables in the future.

Hawaii only has 10% renewables.

They can't handle that. Admittedly, Germany has more, but once you reach a certain point, you won't be able to maintain a stable power supply.

[Simon_Jester]

I would think that Hawaii, like Iceland, would be a poster child for geothermal energy- which is about the most stable source of renewable energy in the world.

[Spoonist]

Congratulations, you're in complete agreement with the OP. Which is that using renewable wind & solar as the primary energy source isn't feasible or desirable. So what the fuck are you arguing over again?

You and j's misuse of sources, false claims, unsupported arguments and use of irrelevant statistics.
And no I'm not in agreement at all with the OP, I made that abundantly clear. It made a shitty assumptions from flawed reasoning.
Then again, no I didn't even agree with article as cited by the OP as it was written. Hence the strikethrough.
Especially didn't like your bullshit attempts at defending both through attempts at propaganda like your false conclusions from the death toll thingie.
Just because I sometimes come to the same conclusions as the author of the article doesn't mean I agree with everything in said article, nor your/J's misuse thereof. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

However, the issue itself is also technically solvable with todays tech without going into pie in the sky stuff, even by using other solutions than mass storage or mass transfers.

Really.

yes, really. It's called regulation before a power source gets to feed into the system. All the big suppliers can give you quotes on how to make a local solution instead of feeding it in and let it be someone else's problem. However the political will is not really there, such regulation would slow the growth of household installations of RE. See the hawaii example quoted above, its a political issue, not a technological one.

So why is it that the BNU and DENA papers, along with Paul-Frederik Bach (look up his credentials one day) all state that extensive grid connections to enable mass transfers of power along with large scale storage solutions are required for renewables to be used as the primary energy source? And in fact they all state that the deployment of renewables will stall out if the required grid extensions aren't made.

Are you a complete tool? Appeal to authority for the win. So instead of actually making arguments any more you simply say look at him he's an expert? While you at the same time assume that germany and its grid industry etc are not experts? At this point I'm simply hoping you are trolling and not serious. I mean you are using the german energy industry findings through DENA as your source for complaining that the german energy industry doesn't know what its doing.
Let's pick this apart shall we?
1) Large storage solutions for energy have been available since at least the 70s. So, nope that is not a pie in the sky. This is why Norway is often mentioned in context. You can for instance use a conventional hydrodam to store energy from intermittent RE like wind farms. So instead of putting the peak to the main grid you divert it to the dam.
2) You are again confusing different renewables. Not all renewables are intermittent.
3) Mass transfers of power are already desirable to connect energy markets more effeciantly to reduce waste and profit from selling it to countries who suddenly decide to shut down their nuke plants. So that capitalistic requirement is there without RE as the prime source of energy. How many times do I need to repeat it and have you try to run away from it every time?
4) If germany truly wants it can reach its targets by imports alone. That is neither realistic nor practical, but the tech and money is already there.
5) How do you think that Bach saying that we are behind on necessary investments in the smart grid solutions would be an argument against RE as a prime source of energy? He is pretty much stating bluntly that given his list of grid investments it will be possible. A view which I do not necessarily share.
6) This still doesn't adress the global energy market, nor the trend for RE in india, asia, africa, south america etc. This only targets germany's energy politics in a EU context. This was why I asked you in my first post "Am I missing a limited context somewhere? We are both talking about the gkobal energy market, right?". By not responding properly to that and many more questions I've asked you but still carrying on trying to argue against what I've told you, you have created this mess where you try to make it into me misrepresenting you, when it's instead you who doesn't really know what context you are talking in and skipping back and forth. If J and you would have been explicit about a german context only and not understanding the global trends then your idiocy at least is internally consistent.
7) DENA 2005 report says it differently.

Conclusion
In summary it can be said that the hazard potentials for system stability identified in the study require coordinated action for the additional installation of new wind turbines, during WT repowering and redispatching of in particular coastal conventional power plants in order to correct the critical situation which has already occurred. This can be achieved by forced WT repowering and retrofitting of the existing wind turbines, if technically possible, in accordance with the shutdown criteria for existing wind turbines according to Section 9.5.

Furthermore possible negative dynamic effects of the wind turbines remaining in the grid must be considered (s. also Section 9.4.7). This means that the problems shown with regard to existing wind turbines require a coordinated approach amongst transmission and distribution system operators, manufacturers and operators of wind turbines to find technically/economically efficient solutions. Based on the present findings, the following modified shutdown criteria for different turbine types were proposed and their effects on the grid were examined.

Based on the findings gained within this study, it is imperative to increase the minimum requirements previously listed in the new grid connection regulations, particularly with regard to behaviour during short circuits, for the further expansion of wind energy.

Want to guess what happened? Germany and some EU regulations changed accordingly, the supplying industry added it to the portfolios etc. As I said, no pie in the sky needed, we have the tech now to solve it.
8] Check this out its chapter 8 in "Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems"
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch08.pdf
Look what a shiny list of experts from all over the world. And a 2011 date as well, how nice. Bach is mentioned, so sweet.

Existing energy infrastructure, markets and other institutional arrangements may need adapting, but there are few, ifany, technical limits to the planned system integration of RE technologies across the very broad range of present energy supply systems worldwide, though other barriers (e.g., economic barriers) may exist. Improved overall system effi ciency and higher RE shares can be achieved by the increased integration of a portfolio of RE resources and technologies. This
can be enhanced by the fl exible cogeneration of electricity, fuels, heating and cooling, as well as the utilization of storage and demand response options across different supply systems. Real-world case studies outlined throughout the chapter exemplify how different approaches to integration within a specifi c context have successfully achieved RE deployment by means of a combination of technologies, markets, and social and institutional mechanisms.

Oh, but the horror this time the experts doesn't say what airy wants... such a pity. And isch, they use pesky case studies from real industries, how quaint.

So no that was not a counter argument to what I said, but that is because of you trying to switch from the global perspective to a germany oriented one, so instead it became another misrepresentation of your sources and a flawed understanding of the reality of the global energy market.

Right now there's an installed capacity of somewhere between 65-70GW for renewables in Germany, which provides somewhere between 20-25% of its energy needs depending on weather. To reach the required 80% renewable target would imply around 3-4 times the current installed capacity, neglecting losses for conversion & storage. Peak demand is around 80GW so if it happens to be windy & sunny at the time you'll have 130GW that needs to go somewhere, either into storage or exports. Which is why there's massive grid links in the 60-80GW range in those papers.

Yes? And? You are again focusing on the strawman of a 2050 vision in a single country to back up a claim that "This article thoroughly covers why renewable energy as envisaged by its proponents does not and cannot work, and why it will end in tears and epic failure." I've already repeatedly pointed out to you why this is a strwaman while you respond by trying to stick a dick in each ear going 'lala can't hear you' from the cascades. Really classy.
Then to top it off, I'm not even arguing for that viewpoint, so its another red herring.
It still doesn't justify your claims nor your misuse of invalid arguments.

[Spoonist]

Basically, Hawaii is going to be the best example of why renewables aren't feasible.

Did you read the article?

I read it as: rapid adoption has lead to some problems, measures have been (and are being) taken to address those problems, and Hawaii is forging ahead with more renewables in the future.

Hawaii only has 10% renewables.

They can't handle that. Admittedly, Germany has more, but once you reach a certain point, you won't be able to maintain a stable power supply.

This is flawed since it assumes a common baseline regardless of a regions geographical advantages.
Iceland easily proves such assumptions to be wrong. There is a reason why they have some aluminium plants while having no natural sources for aluminium.
http://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/orku ... -enska.pdf
Also this completely ignores the vast regions on earth where it is not ROI feasable to connect to a mass grid at all. In some of those instances RE can be the only feasable solution at all.
I've already covered this and even quoted you while doing so upthread.

You can't make such generalizations. Instead you need plenty of caveats to start such a discussion.

[amigocabal]

Were not wood and whale oil renewable?

[LaCroix]

Were not wood and whale oil renewable?

Yes, and wood has been used in a responsible way in home heating for thousands of years. (Austria's forests are actually growing.)
It can be used to drive cars, trains, and even in the industry.

It's simply not that widely available in regards to the amount of power we need.

Same for whales, who were not used in a responsible way.

[Spoonist]

To expand on what LaCroix says. If Biomass is to be counted as renewable by todays standards (which are arbitrarily defined by politicians, not scientists) then it either has to be new growth, a biproduct/waste from another process or if you replant etc to keep the vegetation going.

So if we are talking historically that has not been the case for wood, instead we see the disappearance of forests and undergrowth wherever humans establish communities. Easter island being one of the prime examples.
It's not airtight since a lot of the overconsumption does not come from heat production but rather human industry, ie tools, furniture, housing, boats etc etc with England being a good example there, where all the big trees went into the royal navy.

When it comes to the historical use of whale oil it could actually be counted as "renewable" by the current definition and that is because it could be argued that it is a biproduct of the whale-for-meat industry.

But it's all dependent on the context and who makes the judgement call.

Which is why I usually don't include biomass except for waste into discussions about renewables.