The physics that demolishes ‘green’ energy policy
There is far more heat energy in a swimming pool than in a pan of boiling water. You can boil an egg in the pan. You can’t boil an egg in the pool. And if you doubled the size of the pool, you’d double the energy available — and still have a cold, raw egg
This is not a riddle. It is the single most important concept in the energy debate, and almost nobody making energy policy understands it.
To do useful work, energy must flow from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration.
This difference is called the energy gradient. The steeper the gradient, the more work you can extract. A shallow gradient means the energy is real but useless.
Think of a ski slope. A run that falls 1,000 feet over 1,000 feet of distance is steep enough to let gravity do the work. A ski queue that falls 10 feet over 100 feet is too shallow — you have to shuffle.
Now join 100 ski queues end to end. The total height difference is 1,000 feet — the same as the ski run. But do you glide down it? No. Because the gradient hasn’t changed. It’s still a long, flat shuffle.
This is exactly what happens when you build more wind turbines. A gas flame at 1,500°C in a 15°C room is a ski run — a vast temperature difference that a power generation system can exploit.
A wind turbine extracts energy from air moving at perhaps 25 miles an hour. That’s real energy, but it’s a tiny gradient — the difference between a breeze and no breeze.
Build a thousand turbines and the total energy grows, but the gradient of each one hasn’t changed.
You haven’t built a ski run. You’ve built a thousand ski queues.
Energy Density
Energy gradient tells you whether a source can do work, and therefore why the sheer quantity of energy available tells you almost nothing about how much useful work you can extract from it.
Energy density tells you whether you can build a civilisation on it.
Diesel contains roughly 44 megajoules per kilogram. The best lithium-ion battery manages about 1. That is a ratio of 44 to 1 — and the gap is not an engineering problem. It is a chemistry problem.
Carbon-hydrogen bonds release enormous energy when broken. Shuttling lithium ions between electrodes releases much less. The periodic table is not subject to software updates.
This is why you can drive from London to Edinburgh on 50 litres of diesel, but need a battery weighing half a tonne to do it in an electric car. It’s why aviation runs on kerosene and always will.
It is not a matter of waiting for better technology. It is a hard physical constraint.
Every successful energy transition in history has moved up the density ladder: wood to coal, coal to oil, oil to nuclear. Each step concentrated more energy into less mass, enabling capabilities that were physically impossible before.
Railways. Aviation. The globalised supply chain. The direction has always been the same: concentration.
Power Density
There is a third concept that follows from these two: power density. How much energy can you extract from a given area of land?
A gas-fired or nuclear power station produces roughly 1,000 watts per square metre of land it occupies.
A solar farm manages 20 to 30.
A wind farm — once you account for the spacing turbines need to avoid stealing each other’s wind — delivers 1 to 3.
That is a factor of somewhere between 300 and 1,000. To replace a single gas plant with wind turbines, you need 300 to 1,000 times more land.
That land is not empty. It is farmland, moorland, coastal seabed, or someone’s horizon. It must be manufactured, transported, erected on concrete foundations, connected by access roads, and linked to the grid by hundreds of miles of new transmission lines.
This is not a problem that improves with scale. It gets worse. Low power density means spreading out. Spreading out means longer transmission distances, more infrastructure, and more energy consumed building and maintaining the collection network.
At some point, the energy required to sustain the system begins to consume a significant fraction of the energy it produces. The system is running to stand still.
These three concepts — gradient, density, and power density — describe the thermodynamic floor beneath civilisation. No policy, no subsidy, and no amount of determination can override them.
Every involuntary move down the density ladder in human history has produced not a gentle simplification but a catastrophe.
The Western Roman Empire did not “transition” to a lower-energy economy. It collapsed, and half the population died.
The proposal to replace gas and nuclear with wind and solar reverses the direction of every successful energy transition in human history.
It moves down the density ladder, deliberately, and hopes for the best. That is what I mean when I say current energy policy is in a head-on collision with physics.
The physics of gradient, density, and land use are the starting point for understanding why.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Adobe Stock
Tom
| #
Green energy has always been the spendthrift idea of the retarded liberals. It equates to money for nothing. Like inflation where trillions of dollar vanish into thin air.
Reply
very old white guy
| #
I feel the need to say it once again. You cannot build electrical generating equipment without coal, oil and gas. The farce of wind and solar power being renewable is just that, farce.
Reply