this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
4 points (58.3% liked)

collapse

355 readers
159 users here now

Placeholder for time being, moving from lemm.ee

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] obre@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Buzzwordslop fossil fuel apologia.

One of the main points of this article seems to be about distinguishing wind turbines as 'power amplifiers' rather than energy sources.

"Consider a bicycle. A bicycle does not create energy. The energy comes entirely from the metabolic calories of the cyclist (which came from the sun via agriculture). What the bicycle does is amplify power. It allows the human to convert that caloric energy into mechanical work at a much higher and more efficient rate than walking.

A wind turbine operates on the exact same principle. It does not create energy; it intercepts the diffuse kinetic energy of the wind. It is an exquisite machine for amplifying power, allowing us to extract that kinetic energy at highly useful rates to do mechanical or electrical work.

But a power amplifier is not a net exergy source."

Nothing creates energy
Energy is neither created not destroyed. For all the rambling about thermodynamic impossibilities, the author never acknowledges this. Drawing some arbitrary line between energy sources and 'power amplifiers' is a distinction without a practical difference.

Then there's some fossil fuel apologia with some token anticapitalist buzzwords.

"The reigning narrative claims that wind and solar are net exergy sources. It claims that they can fully replace the dense, high-ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) fossil fuels that built the modern world, while simultaneously powering the civilisation that manufactures them, plus economic growth.1

This is thermodynamically false."

"To transition to renewables, we are injecting a massive pulse of critically scarce fossil exergy into the system to build new infrastructural mass (MM). Because this infrastructure is diffuse and intermittent, it requires a colossal increase in logistical and grid-management complexity (S).3 And because it is financed through our existing debt-based architecture, it concentrates wealth and accelerates financialisation (αf).

We are cannibalising our dwindling lifeblood to build a fleet of power amplifiers, under the delusion that they are energy sources. The thermodynamic result is a severe net decrease in Effective Circulating Power (Peff). The ‘Green Transition’ does not halt our orbital decay towards the Resource Entropy Singularity; it actively accelerates it by starving the real economy of circulating surplus at the exact moment we face a global supply shock."

And finally wraps up by saying that powering civilization with renewables would mean scheduling running your kettle around the weather outside.

Cool stuff.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Drawing some arbitrary line between energy sources and 'power amplifiers' is a distinction without a practical difference.

So if you were talking about a car, there is no difference between the volume of the fuel tank and the horsepower of the engine? ;)

The whole point of this article is that people are totally muddled up about the distinction. The title starts 'power, not energy... '.

With all due respect, his point is made clear by your comment.

Also, the word he uses is 'exergy'. You said 'Energy'. I'm not clear you followed the logic.

[–] obre@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We're not taking about cars, we're taking about electricity generation. Both renewable and fossil fuel infrastructure supply power to the grid. The work tries to muddy the waters, laud fossil fuels, and disparage renewables. You may clarify the point if you feel so inclined.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's exactly what he is saying. Renewables deliver power to the grid.

What he is saying is that at the same time they provide power, they don't deliver energy (if you do all the accounting for the system).

This doesn't laud fossil fuels. This is only a critique on renewables if fossil fuel use is a negative. He is saying that renewables (right now) are a scam for being not enough of real solution to the problem of fossil fuels.

Do not mistake being qualified on using renewables as pro-fossil fuels. The author is actually saying renewables aren't automatically anti-fossil fuels and we are doing them wrong. He's calling for a clear minded adult conversation and not childish oversimplifications. As far as I can tell, he's saying this can't work if we don't get rid of "grid" systems entirely. We need a totally different system.

The problem is that people are fooling themselves about what is going on, really.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is pseudoscientific nonsense dressed up with ridiculous handwaving, as far as I can tell. Sloppy argument dressed up with fake academic jargon.

[–] fake_meows@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Why don't you state what you think the argument is and what's wrong with it? Are you just bashing the writing style or do you have a genuine disagreement with the idea?

"I don't like it" isn't the same thing as "he's wrong" or "I disagree".

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

There's too much of it. It Gish Gallops us and throws so much bullshit at the wall, it's impossible to navigate. I felt dumber just reading it.

[–] Mucki@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What kind of terrible LLM slop image is that, coal powered wind turbines? Wtf?

[–] Anarchitect@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

if the manufacture and supply chain of materials of a windmill is substantially fossil fuel based its just a symbolic version of that.

while i think a lot of the "renewables are made of fossil fuels" arguments are overly reductionist in a pragmatic sense its still true. i do think many of those people think unless the entire supply chain of renewables is renewables its impure or not useful. Its still very useful and steps on a continuum to full renewable self reproduction , even if it does take some nuclear peaker plants or something .