Until leftists understand that CO2 is not a GHG and that more of it is actually better for the earth and it’s inhabitants, facts about the impracticality of “renewable” is not persuasive - after all it’s their religion and their path to the destruction of capitalism and installation of worldwide communism
Just talked to a colleague in Arlington, TX. Cold wave there, and right on schedule, wind power production has dropped way down for the last few days. So far, nat gas and coal are picking up the slack. :) Jim Cantore just arrived in the N Central TX area, so they're expecting the worst.
Thank you for this well-researched no-B.S. look at the state of the non-transition to wind and solar.
I live in Colorado and am appalled at the lock-step energy death march of our Governor and Democratic-controlled legislature. I am a rare conservative climate activist. I persistently present Energy Reality to hard Green activists. My goal is to be an effective voice in waking up a few progressives to the fact that high energy prices and an unreliable grid will be the end of the Democratic majority in Colorado politics.
Thank you Rick, for a very well done analysis. From a utility perspective, how much electricity is used for operations of wind facilities? I polled Co-op and a PUD and found that the wind facilities were their largest industrial customers. Is anyone counting their increase on grid demand?
I live in the Middle of Nowhere in southeastern Washington State some miles east of Richland. I have 35 years of experience in nuclear construction, in nuclear operations, and in nuclear project planning.
Concerning my Internet presence, I post on Watts Up With That and on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog under the Internet handle 'Beta Blocker'. And also on the Cliff Mass weather blog under the handle 'Betah Blocher'. My Internet handle is a reflection that my career occupational radiation exposure comes primarily from beta-gamma sources as opposed to alpha sources.
In late October, 2024, I stayed in town after work to attend one of Rick Dunn's public presentations.
This comment repeats remarks I made on Watts Up With That in November and December of 2024 concerning wind and solar as it is now being aggressively promoted in this region. My remarks analyze the requirements for a hypothetical 3000 megawatt baseload wind & solar capacity expansion for the US Northwest. With emphasis on 'baseload'.
DESCRIPTION OF A HYPOTHETICAL 3000 MW BASELOAD WIND & SOLAR EXPANSION:
Here in the US Northwest, the regional power planning council’s 2021 long range plan calls for the addition of 3,000 megawatts of intermittent wind and solar capacity plus 720 megawatts of firming capacity. Comparatively little backup storage is projected to be needed.
The council’s 2021 plan is an exceptionally flawed document which does not come close to accounting for currently expected increases in the US Northwest’s regional power demand. Nor are the Western Electricity Coordination Council's planning documents any better.
Four years later in the year 2025, in order to account for expected future increases in power demand here in the US Northwest, suppose we simply assume that the 3,000-megawatt expansion of wind & solar intermittent generation must now become 3,000 megawatts of wind & solar baseload generation producing 72,000 megawatt-hours daily 24/7/365.
SYSTEM SPECIFICATION:
— The hypothetical wind & solar expansion matches the 24/7/365 performance of four new-build 1,100 megawatt nuclear reactors.
— The expanded wind & solar capacity produces 72,000 megawatt-hours daily; 3,000 megawatts maximum instantaneous demand; for a total of 26,280,000 megawatt-hours per year.
— The integrated wind-solar-battery system includes 9,000 megawatts of nameplate wind; 9,000 megawatts of nameplate solar; and 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage.
— A 6X combined wind & solar overbuild yields 18,000 MW total nameplate capacity. Assume a combined 25% annual capacity factor based on the BPA’s experience within its area of load balancing authority.
— Battery storage capacity is driven by seasonal requirements. A substantial drawdown occurs in late fall and winter; a substantial recovery occurs in early spring.
— Battery operating range: 0-100% full; 0-3.6 TWh stored; 0-50 days reserve at 72,000 MWh per day; 8% loss on charge; 12% loss on discharge.
— Winter storage is exhausted once every decade for periods lasting up to seven days. System output then falls to 6,000 megawatt-hours per day.
— The hypothetical system supplies all ancillary grid support services; e.g. frequency & voltage stabilization, reactive power, inertia, etc.
This first graphic illustrates the wind & solar capacity factors experienced by the Bonneville Power Administration within its area of load balancing authority between 06/21/2022 and 06/21/2024. Note the powerful influence of seasonal variation in capacity factors as opposed to daily/weekly variation.
A second graphic illustrates the performance of the above-specified hypothetical wind & solar expansion, an expansion which matches the 24/7/365 performance of four new-build 1,100 MW nuclear reactors over a similar 24-month period; i.e., 06/21 of Year 1 through 06/21 of Year 3.
Note that the second graphic illustrates: (1) which portion of the daily generation goes directly to baseload; (2) which portion goes into battery storage; (3) which portion is either exported or else curtailed; and (4) which portion is drawn from battery storage in order to reliably produce 72,000 megawatt-hours per day.
Note as well that the 'battery' portion of the second graphic represents a theoretical energy storage construct. Designing a real-world practical implementation of this nominal 3,600,000 megawatt-hour 'battery' would be among the most difficult tasks ever assigned to competent battery storage technologists.
FURTHER REMARKS:
1: A 6X wind & solar overbuild factor — 18,000 MW total plus a nominal 3.6 TWh battery storage to produce 3,000 MW reliably 24/6/365 — is used to reduce energy storage requirements for late fall and early winter battery drawdown periods. The use of a 4X overbuild factor as opposed to a 6X overbuild would require from 12 to 15 terawatt-hours of nominal storage as opposed to the 3.6 terawatt-hours nominally specified.
2: An even balance of wind versus solar capacity is specified. Several factors are at play here, including the availability of infrastructure siting locations suitable for each specific type, either wind or solar, plus the political requirement to support wind energy suppliers and solar energy suppliers equally well in terms of contracts awarded and dollars spent.
3: The second graphic above illustrates two periods of extended battery drawdown & recovery. The volume of megawatt-hours drawn in the second drawdown period (4,300,000 megawatt-hours) is substantially larger than that drawn in the first (2,500,000 megawatt-hours). An extended lull in wintertime wind and solar output, as would be expected to occur roughly every decade or so, would completely exhaust the entire 3.6 TWh of storage for periods lasting seven days or longer.
4: The battery storage system operates between zero and 100% full. The volume of storage is so large, as demanded by seasonal drawdown & recovery requirements, that daily and weekly charge/discharge cycles can be spread among large numbers of battery packs. That said, no grid-scale battery storage facilities of this magnitude have ever been engineered or constructed. More than 3.6 TWh might be needed to fulfill the nominal 3.6 TWh requirement. Possibly much more.
5: The wind & solar system supplies every grid stabilization service that the legacy system currently supplies; e.g. frequency & voltage stabilization, reactive power, inertia, etc. Where direct inversion technology isn’t up to the task of supplying the necessary grid stabilization services, large DC-powered electro-motor units turn large rotating AC generator units thus covering any inertia and reactive power requirements which can’t be handled through direct inversion.
6: The use of electromotor-driven DC to AC conversion, where necessary, is an exceptionally inefficient and expensive approach to supplying grid stabilization services. That said, the cost of 3.6 TWh of battery storage is so large that in the grand scheme of things, the costs and inefficiencies of motor-driven DC to AC conversion are a comparatively minor component of the total system cost.
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS:
The bulk of the capital cost for this 3000 MW baseload expansion is for battery storage, nominally 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of storage. For purposes of discussion, let's assume the future capital cost of battery storage is cut from a current $500,000 per megawatt-hour to a figure of $200,000 per megawatt-hour.
Under very highly optimistic assumptions for what wind systems, solar systems, and especially battery systems, will cost within the next ten years, a rough guess would place just the initial capital cost of this 3,000 MW baseload expansion at upwards of 600 billion dollars, probably more.
In other words, roughly ten times the initial capital cost of four new-build 1,100 megawatt AP1000-size reactors at 15 billion dollars per reactor in order to achieve the same 24/7/365 level of baseload performance as the nuclear reactors.
Do you forcefully advocate thorium reactors to overcome the reasonable objections to bomb making nuclear power. All the other objections to nuclear power have been based on fear, propaganda based fear. It will take a giant effort to overcome that.
Keep in mind that gas, coal and nuke plants all have to be backed up too. Each have to be shut down for maintenance at certain times. Yes these are most often scheduled but there are also unscheduled shut down events. That’s why most grid operators require that a reserve margin of resources are available for dispatch. Solar and wind don’t count as a dispatchable resource but battery storage is.
The battery storage facilities being built today in the year 2025 are specified for either a 4-hour or a 10-hour performance capacity at their maximum discharge rate.
If power demand against a fleet of battery storage facilities exceeds their megawatt-hour capacities, then either other sources of generation must come online or else power demand must be reduced in real time through some load/demand control scheme.
I noticed that the chart you posted from Our World In Data seems to show the data without their “substitution method” and has a different text above the chart?
Either way, I am hoping most people will eventually start to see that the immense, one time pulse of energy that we got from fossil Carbon, will not realistically be replaced as it leaves us through decision and inevitable depletion.
Last year, the average continuous rate of world primary energy consumption was 19.7 Terawatts. Including the waste heat as we applied the various sources to final use. Even if we could achieve the efficiency gains that result from the perfect electrification of everything, we would still need about 8 TW.
Not even considering continued exponential growth of the global economy of a minimal 2% per year which historically has required a matching increase in energy. 40 years from now, GDP and the required energy and materials would need to be doubled once again to keep the financial system from crashing into terminal depression.
Last year solar plus wind produced at an average rate of 0.44TW and nuclear produced at 0.30TW.
R, thank you for a very well done, informative article! Am sharing the link on Gab.
If I might add: Folks don't realize how much petroleum products are used, not only in everyday products they use, but to produce & maintain the so called clean wind turbines, solar panels, toxic batteries & that petroleum products are used to keep wind turbines running in some cases. (See link below.) Further, when folks go on about how bad CO2 is, they need to be reminded that their bodies are made up of roughly 65% oxygen & 18.5% carbon (see links below). No CO2 & no life.
On a separate note: folks, & this write-up, use the term "fossil fuels" but there is no documented peer reviewed evidence that petroleum products are generated from fossils. If I might suggest, use an alternate term such as carbon based fuels (cbf) rather than "fossil fuels". (See link below.)
Amount of petroleum product used to manufacture a wind turbine: (Note: this does NOT include the amount of petroleum for installation & maintenance of the wind turbines.)
How much petroleum does it take to make a wind turbine?
Offshore wind turbines may produce green energy, but they consume far more oil than their proponents disclose. According to calculations released by Forbes on Wednesday, just laying the foundation for a single offshore turbine can require 18,857 barrels of marine petroleum during construction.
Yes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered necessary for the wellbeing of the human body as it plays a crucial role in regulating blood pH levels and driving respiration, meaning the body needs a certain amount of CO2 to function properly; however, high concentrations of CO2 can be harmful and impact cognitive function.
Carbon based fuels are not generated from fossils:
Fossil fuels aren't made from fossils. What do you mean fossil fuels aren't made of fossils? When we say fossil fuels, we're actually talking about a wide variety of products: coal, petroleum, oil, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils.
Until leftists understand that CO2 is not a GHG and that more of it is actually better for the earth and it’s inhabitants, facts about the impracticality of “renewable” is not persuasive - after all it’s their religion and their path to the destruction of capitalism and installation of worldwide communism
Excellent article, again. Thank you.
Just talked to a colleague in Arlington, TX. Cold wave there, and right on schedule, wind power production has dropped way down for the last few days. So far, nat gas and coal are picking up the slack. :) Jim Cantore just arrived in the N Central TX area, so they're expecting the worst.
Thank you for this well-researched no-B.S. look at the state of the non-transition to wind and solar.
I live in Colorado and am appalled at the lock-step energy death march of our Governor and Democratic-controlled legislature. I am a rare conservative climate activist. I persistently present Energy Reality to hard Green activists. My goal is to be an effective voice in waking up a few progressives to the fact that high energy prices and an unreliable grid will be the end of the Democratic majority in Colorado politics.
Thank you Rick, for a very well done analysis. From a utility perspective, how much electricity is used for operations of wind facilities? I polled Co-op and a PUD and found that the wind facilities were their largest industrial customers. Is anyone counting their increase on grid demand?
I live in the Middle of Nowhere in southeastern Washington State some miles east of Richland. I have 35 years of experience in nuclear construction, in nuclear operations, and in nuclear project planning.
Concerning my Internet presence, I post on Watts Up With That and on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog under the Internet handle 'Beta Blocker'. And also on the Cliff Mass weather blog under the handle 'Betah Blocher'. My Internet handle is a reflection that my career occupational radiation exposure comes primarily from beta-gamma sources as opposed to alpha sources.
In late October, 2024, I stayed in town after work to attend one of Rick Dunn's public presentations.
This comment repeats remarks I made on Watts Up With That in November and December of 2024 concerning wind and solar as it is now being aggressively promoted in this region. My remarks analyze the requirements for a hypothetical 3000 megawatt baseload wind & solar capacity expansion for the US Northwest. With emphasis on 'baseload'.
DESCRIPTION OF A HYPOTHETICAL 3000 MW BASELOAD WIND & SOLAR EXPANSION:
Here in the US Northwest, the regional power planning council’s 2021 long range plan calls for the addition of 3,000 megawatts of intermittent wind and solar capacity plus 720 megawatts of firming capacity. Comparatively little backup storage is projected to be needed.
The council’s 2021 plan is an exceptionally flawed document which does not come close to accounting for currently expected increases in the US Northwest’s regional power demand. Nor are the Western Electricity Coordination Council's planning documents any better.
Four years later in the year 2025, in order to account for expected future increases in power demand here in the US Northwest, suppose we simply assume that the 3,000-megawatt expansion of wind & solar intermittent generation must now become 3,000 megawatts of wind & solar baseload generation producing 72,000 megawatt-hours daily 24/7/365.
SYSTEM SPECIFICATION:
— The hypothetical wind & solar expansion matches the 24/7/365 performance of four new-build 1,100 megawatt nuclear reactors.
— The expanded wind & solar capacity produces 72,000 megawatt-hours daily; 3,000 megawatts maximum instantaneous demand; for a total of 26,280,000 megawatt-hours per year.
— The integrated wind-solar-battery system includes 9,000 megawatts of nameplate wind; 9,000 megawatts of nameplate solar; and 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage.
— A 6X combined wind & solar overbuild yields 18,000 MW total nameplate capacity. Assume a combined 25% annual capacity factor based on the BPA’s experience within its area of load balancing authority.
— Battery storage capacity is driven by seasonal requirements. A substantial drawdown occurs in late fall and winter; a substantial recovery occurs in early spring.
— Battery operating range: 0-100% full; 0-3.6 TWh stored; 0-50 days reserve at 72,000 MWh per day; 8% loss on charge; 12% loss on discharge.
— Winter storage is exhausted once every decade for periods lasting up to seven days. System output then falls to 6,000 megawatt-hours per day.
— The hypothetical system supplies all ancillary grid support services; e.g. frequency & voltage stabilization, reactive power, inertia, etc.
This first graphic illustrates the wind & solar capacity factors experienced by the Bonneville Power Administration within its area of load balancing authority between 06/21/2022 and 06/21/2024. Note the powerful influence of seasonal variation in capacity factors as opposed to daily/weekly variation.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54155123447_c1160cfbb8_o.png
A second graphic illustrates the performance of the above-specified hypothetical wind & solar expansion, an expansion which matches the 24/7/365 performance of four new-build 1,100 MW nuclear reactors over a similar 24-month period; i.e., 06/21 of Year 1 through 06/21 of Year 3.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54156310159_e9eb2aa9ab_o.png
Note that the second graphic illustrates: (1) which portion of the daily generation goes directly to baseload; (2) which portion goes into battery storage; (3) which portion is either exported or else curtailed; and (4) which portion is drawn from battery storage in order to reliably produce 72,000 megawatt-hours per day.
Note as well that the 'battery' portion of the second graphic represents a theoretical energy storage construct. Designing a real-world practical implementation of this nominal 3,600,000 megawatt-hour 'battery' would be among the most difficult tasks ever assigned to competent battery storage technologists.
FURTHER REMARKS:
1: A 6X wind & solar overbuild factor — 18,000 MW total plus a nominal 3.6 TWh battery storage to produce 3,000 MW reliably 24/6/365 — is used to reduce energy storage requirements for late fall and early winter battery drawdown periods. The use of a 4X overbuild factor as opposed to a 6X overbuild would require from 12 to 15 terawatt-hours of nominal storage as opposed to the 3.6 terawatt-hours nominally specified.
2: An even balance of wind versus solar capacity is specified. Several factors are at play here, including the availability of infrastructure siting locations suitable for each specific type, either wind or solar, plus the political requirement to support wind energy suppliers and solar energy suppliers equally well in terms of contracts awarded and dollars spent.
3: The second graphic above illustrates two periods of extended battery drawdown & recovery. The volume of megawatt-hours drawn in the second drawdown period (4,300,000 megawatt-hours) is substantially larger than that drawn in the first (2,500,000 megawatt-hours). An extended lull in wintertime wind and solar output, as would be expected to occur roughly every decade or so, would completely exhaust the entire 3.6 TWh of storage for periods lasting seven days or longer.
4: The battery storage system operates between zero and 100% full. The volume of storage is so large, as demanded by seasonal drawdown & recovery requirements, that daily and weekly charge/discharge cycles can be spread among large numbers of battery packs. That said, no grid-scale battery storage facilities of this magnitude have ever been engineered or constructed. More than 3.6 TWh might be needed to fulfill the nominal 3.6 TWh requirement. Possibly much more.
5: The wind & solar system supplies every grid stabilization service that the legacy system currently supplies; e.g. frequency & voltage stabilization, reactive power, inertia, etc. Where direct inversion technology isn’t up to the task of supplying the necessary grid stabilization services, large DC-powered electro-motor units turn large rotating AC generator units thus covering any inertia and reactive power requirements which can’t be handled through direct inversion.
6: The use of electromotor-driven DC to AC conversion, where necessary, is an exceptionally inefficient and expensive approach to supplying grid stabilization services. That said, the cost of 3.6 TWh of battery storage is so large that in the grand scheme of things, the costs and inefficiencies of motor-driven DC to AC conversion are a comparatively minor component of the total system cost.
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS:
The bulk of the capital cost for this 3000 MW baseload expansion is for battery storage, nominally 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of storage. For purposes of discussion, let's assume the future capital cost of battery storage is cut from a current $500,000 per megawatt-hour to a figure of $200,000 per megawatt-hour.
Under very highly optimistic assumptions for what wind systems, solar systems, and especially battery systems, will cost within the next ten years, a rough guess would place just the initial capital cost of this 3,000 MW baseload expansion at upwards of 600 billion dollars, probably more.
In other words, roughly ten times the initial capital cost of four new-build 1,100 megawatt AP1000-size reactors at 15 billion dollars per reactor in order to achieve the same 24/7/365 level of baseload performance as the nuclear reactors.
Do you forcefully advocate thorium reactors to overcome the reasonable objections to bomb making nuclear power. All the other objections to nuclear power have been based on fear, propaganda based fear. It will take a giant effort to overcome that.
I have always assumed that the claim that solar and wind are the cheapest sources were due to:
1) using the theoretical maximum rather than actual output in the calculation; and
2) ignoring the cost of the gas-fired plants that back up the wind and solar (and, here in Ontario, are paid as though they are producing 24/7).
Keep in mind that gas, coal and nuke plants all have to be backed up too. Each have to be shut down for maintenance at certain times. Yes these are most often scheduled but there are also unscheduled shut down events. That’s why most grid operators require that a reserve margin of resources are available for dispatch. Solar and wind don’t count as a dispatchable resource but battery storage is.
The battery storage facilities being built today in the year 2025 are specified for either a 4-hour or a 10-hour performance capacity at their maximum discharge rate.
If power demand against a fleet of battery storage facilities exceeds their megawatt-hour capacities, then either other sources of generation must come online or else power demand must be reduced in real time through some load/demand control scheme.
The Clockwork Shadow: An Energy of Secretary Lament based on Chris White (Trump’s pick)
Beneath the veil of state design,
A specter stirs through covert line,
Chris White ascends, a cipher’s guise,
His polished mask but cloaked disguise.
At BlackHydra’s throne of oil and fire,
He forged his path, his dark empire.
Through Arctic chills to Amazon’s breath,
His trade was plunder, his yield was death.
In whispers deep, they spin the tale,
Of deregulation’s wicked gale.
Methane loosed, green laws undone,
A race toward a scorched earth run.
The “clean coal” ruse, a fleeting gleam,
A Trojan horse within the scheme.
Geoengineering tempts the sky,
While truths of science he’ll deny.
A technocrat? A puppeteer,
Embedding pawns year after year.
He binds the watchdog, dulls the blade,
In Kafka’s maze, all laws degrade.
He casts as villains those who fight,
For Earth, for truth, for solar light.
“Globalists!” his battle cry,
To fracture minds and amplify.
Through webs of power, his chessboard grows,
As pipelines pulse where the land once glows.
The commons crushed, the megaphones ring,
While fossil barons crown their king.
Yet those who watch with eagle’s sight,
See through the fog of scripted blight.
Connect the threads, expose the plan,
Awake the will of every man.
For though the game seems darkly played,
The light of truth cannot be swayed.
The Earth resists, its voice profound,
And those who hear shall turn it ’round.
Resist the burn, the shadowed grip,
Reverse the course of White’s dark ship.
For in the clash of night and dawn,
The people rise, the lie withdrawn.
GQ
I noticed that the chart you posted from Our World In Data seems to show the data without their “substitution method” and has a different text above the chart?
Either way, I am hoping most people will eventually start to see that the immense, one time pulse of energy that we got from fossil Carbon, will not realistically be replaced as it leaves us through decision and inevitable depletion.
Last year, the average continuous rate of world primary energy consumption was 19.7 Terawatts. Including the waste heat as we applied the various sources to final use. Even if we could achieve the efficiency gains that result from the perfect electrification of everything, we would still need about 8 TW.
Not even considering continued exponential growth of the global economy of a minimal 2% per year which historically has required a matching increase in energy. 40 years from now, GDP and the required energy and materials would need to be doubled once again to keep the financial system from crashing into terminal depression.
Last year solar plus wind produced at an average rate of 0.44TW and nuclear produced at 0.30TW.
R, thank you for a very well done, informative article! Am sharing the link on Gab.
If I might add: Folks don't realize how much petroleum products are used, not only in everyday products they use, but to produce & maintain the so called clean wind turbines, solar panels, toxic batteries & that petroleum products are used to keep wind turbines running in some cases. (See link below.) Further, when folks go on about how bad CO2 is, they need to be reminded that their bodies are made up of roughly 65% oxygen & 18.5% carbon (see links below). No CO2 & no life.
On a separate note: folks, & this write-up, use the term "fossil fuels" but there is no documented peer reviewed evidence that petroleum products are generated from fossils. If I might suggest, use an alternate term such as carbon based fuels (cbf) rather than "fossil fuels". (See link below.)
Amount of petroleum product used to manufacture a wind turbine: (Note: this does NOT include the amount of petroleum for installation & maintenance of the wind turbines.)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=amount+of+petroleum+based+products+used+to+make+a+600+ft+wind+turbine
Makeup of elements in the human body:
( https://www.google.com/search?q=element+makeup+of+the+human+body+by+highest+concentration&client=firefox-b-1-e&sca_esv=c7b5bb23670d5037&ei=t_iBZ_y1EP-A0PEPsYbSCQ&ved=0ahUKEwi87emq7-yKAxV_ADQIHTGDNAEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=element+makeup+of+the+human+body+by+highest+concentration&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiOWVsZW1lbnQgbWFrZXVwIG9mIHRoZSBodW1hbiBib2R5IGJ5IGhpZ2hlc3QgY29uY2VudHJhdGlvbjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIFECEYqwIyBRAhGKsCSIFaUNkiWKNXcAF4AZABAZgB3AOgAb8vqgELMC4xMC4xMC4yLjO4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhmgApYuwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICBhAAGBYYHsICCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAggQABiiBBiJBZgDAIgGAZAGCJIHCjEuMTAuOS4yLjOgB-DlAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
How much petroleum does it take to make a wind turbine?
Offshore wind turbines may produce green energy, but they consume far more oil than their proponents disclose. According to calculations released by Forbes on Wednesday, just laying the foundation for a single offshore turbine can require 18,857 barrels of marine petroleum during construction.
Need for CO2 in the human body:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=is+CO2+needed+for+the+wellbeing+of+the+human+body
Yes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered necessary for the wellbeing of the human body as it plays a crucial role in regulating blood pH levels and driving respiration, meaning the body needs a certain amount of CO2 to function properly; however, high concentrations of CO2 can be harmful and impact cognitive function.
Carbon based fuels are not generated from fossils:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=list+of+independent+peer+reviewed+documents+that+hydrocarbon+fuels+are+made+from+fossils
Are fossil fuels really made from fossils?
What Are Fossil Fuels Made Of? | Britannica
Fossil fuels aren't made from fossils. What do you mean fossil fuels aren't made of fossils? When we say fossil fuels, we're actually talking about a wide variety of products: coal, petroleum, oil, natural gas, oil shales, bitumens, tar sands, and heavy oils.