"Democratic elites and activists are very, very committed to this approach and are willing to pay high costs to make it happen."
No, they are willing to have the NORMIES pay high costs to make it happen.
I've been saying for years, Trump is not a problem, he is symptom. If Trump is the problem, how does that explain Argentina? Europe? Even Israel? No, Trump is a symptom of the separation of the elites and the Normies. Trump does two things the Normies like very much 1) he prioritizes the concerns of normal people (inflation, immigration, war, taxes, etc.) and 2) he makes the elites mad, as mad as the Normies have been for a long time. That is why people love him, because even if he can't solve the problems, at least he can piss off the elites and frustrate their silly goals.
Nope this is a fantasy, these “elites” are in your heads. There is a debate amongst experts about climate change and the right policy response - that’s what the intelligent part of the article above is - debate (unlike the repetition of the conjectured Trumpist meme on “liberal elites” vs. “Workers” ). This “elite” anti-expert meme started with Brexit (a disaster for the working people of the UK) and Trumps first round of fake news, which somehow got him into power to introduce tax cuts for the well-off and trade tariffs.
How much...time do elites spend discussing pronouns and white supremacy, versus a) how much do normal people care about these things (almost zero) and b) how big are these problems exactly (also almost zero)?
When is the last time you saw politicians debate university costs? The average cost of attending a four-year college or university in the United States rose by 500+% between the 1985-86 and 2020. That is DOUBLE the rate of inflation. So, why is this happening and what is the plan to reign in these costs? *crickets*.
I could walk you through a dozen issues where there is the same thing - big problems that need fixing and elites out to lunch, and a dozen issues elites spend inordinate amounts of time fussing over, that are completely meaningless to normal people.
Here In the UK the impact has initially been wetter winters and drier summers. The UK is complex because we benefit from the Gulf Stream (keeps us warmer than we should be given how north the British isles are) which risks disruption from global warming.
I think you Net-zero critics still don’t get it, try as you might.
Net-zero is intended for _them_, the power elites ((in both senses of ‘power’). They are the ones who will have access to ‘green’ energy, ‘clean’ fuels… solar, wind, tidal, biofuel, etc.
The rest of us can suck heat, starve and die. There’s enough to go around for an established elite, and their ‘willing’, hard-working servants.
—
To be sure the aggregate global energy and resource demand needs to get smaller, and this necessarily will have to come with trade-offs (which some will see as sacrifice). As things stand, though, the trade-offs are intended to be differentially shared. What the Rosy Goal-zero types believe in their hearts is that they will be at the top of the pyramid, and not at the bottom.
You have it right. Since abandoning Judeo-Christian religion, we have switched to the man-is-bad environmental religion. The new one is particularly convenient because we can make others atone for our own sins. In Christianity and Judaism, we must each atone for our own sins.
Don’t misunderstand me. It’s the wealthy power elites of _both_ ‘parties’ or ‘sides’ who think like this, whether or not they profess to believe in Judeo-Christian values or not.
Thanks for the trenchant comments regarding decision makers from Vaclav Smil. Your previous essay motivated me to purchase a copy of Smil's 2015 book on Power Density. CGNP regularly emails Attorney Jennifer Hernandez. We love her "Green Jim Crow" quote.
Greenhouse theory (and radiation theory as a whole) presents a paradox and contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Its premise claims molecular nitrogen and oxygen (99 percent of the dry atmosphere) do not transfer (emit or absorb infrared) radiation at any temperature; however, all matter above absolute zero Kelvin radiates IR photons, and ‘air’ is a very poor thermal conductor of heat (0.0262 W/(m K)) – so how does it transfer heat?
Progressivism has run out of ideas and has defaulted to regressivisim to find sanctuary in old and contested ideas as well as in new unproven and scientistic endeavors.
The environmental/sustainability discourse is the exemplar of putting the cart before the horse.
This divide and woeful ignorance is what happens after decades of lackluster stem focus in education and when our academia at all levels are so captured by ideology that deny basic human biology. Trump may override some of these mandates but will face an unending barrage of negative media push back. We have to go completely school choice to dig our way out of this morass of stupid.
what a wonderful work we have moved far beyond science as we believe phrases like zero emission solutions come from engineers but must be in partnership with policy makers so well written i thank you
Mmm, wouldn't the availability of cheaper renewable energy benefit the working class? Wouldn't it lower the cost-of-living and free-up more funds for everyone, but especially the poor, who spend a great proportion of their income on necessities?
In a word...NO. "Cheap renewables" is an oxymoron. That is why Vaclav Smil called "bullshit" on net zero.
You need to read essays like Orr's "Cooking the Books," a two-part series on the hidden costs of renewables. Or Jim Conca's publication last year in Nuclear News, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples". (https://www.ans.org/news/article-5024/how-to-compare-energy-sourcesapples-to-apples/) That is one of the best, most practical explanations and cost comparisons of energy sources I've found.
Also look at Epstein's work, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." Shellenberger has also argued that renewables are more expensive than fossil. Smil's book on power density would also be an excellent primer for you to understand why renewables aren't cheap.
You want to benefit the working class, then make more energy available, and at lower prices and not encumbered by government policy. You will never raise people from poverty by making their energy more expensive or less reliable. Look at "The amount of energy, in the form of access to electricity, needed to eradicate global poverty," again by Jim Conca, published in Forbes 27 June 2018.
The availability of energy, brought about by the technological expansion of fossil fuels over the past 150 years have brought about dramatic improvements in global life expectancy, per capita income, food security, crop yields, and various health-related metrics. It constantly amazes me that the renewables crowd fail to understand or even acknowledge the existence of such metrics.
How do they further "hurt" the working class? The working class is already paying into tax funds which subsidize the fossil fuel industry. Please explain this dogma that investment in renewables burdens the working class.
Well, this is considerably dumbed down, but here goes:
1) Power plants are expensive. A natural gas power plant might cost $500 million and last 30 years.
2) Most power plants are built on borrowed money (see above). That way these huge costs can be spread over many users over a long period of time, giving everyone lower power costs.
3) Only <1/3 of the natural gas power plant costs is fuel. Most of my cost is tied up in the capital costs, the interest, and the transmission costs.
4) Now add in renewables. Say the renewables cost 2/3 as much when they are generating power, and the nat gas plant steps in when they are not. a) I still have the capital costs, interest, and transmission costs to pay for, meaning most of the cost from the plant is unchanged. I'm paying for cheap solar and wind + 3/4 of the cost for the nat gas plant. That makes the energy MORE expensive than it would have been absent the solar and wind, even when the solar and wind is cheaper.
5) A battery doesn't help - there is no possible way for a battery to store enough energy to ditch the nat gas plant.
6) Since I have to gather the renewable energy from a wide area, my transmission costs also go up.
7) I could build more wind and solar, but the math says I'll need about 10X my demand for this to work, which also increases costs.
8) this is why wind and solar usage correlates so closely to electricity costs - more wind and solar = higher retail costs.
Nobody has a path out of this mess, and fundamental physics says there is no path out, since the core of the problem is routed in energy density and availability.
Well done, Robert. Hope it takes root and changes some opinions.
"Democratic elites and activists are very, very committed to this approach and are willing to pay high costs to make it happen."
No, they are willing to have the NORMIES pay high costs to make it happen.
I've been saying for years, Trump is not a problem, he is symptom. If Trump is the problem, how does that explain Argentina? Europe? Even Israel? No, Trump is a symptom of the separation of the elites and the Normies. Trump does two things the Normies like very much 1) he prioritizes the concerns of normal people (inflation, immigration, war, taxes, etc.) and 2) he makes the elites mad, as mad as the Normies have been for a long time. That is why people love him, because even if he can't solve the problems, at least he can piss off the elites and frustrate their silly goals.
Nope this is a fantasy, these “elites” are in your heads. There is a debate amongst experts about climate change and the right policy response - that’s what the intelligent part of the article above is - debate (unlike the repetition of the conjectured Trumpist meme on “liberal elites” vs. “Workers” ). This “elite” anti-expert meme started with Brexit (a disaster for the working people of the UK) and Trumps first round of fake news, which somehow got him into power to introduce tax cuts for the well-off and trade tariffs.
There is a constant effort by elites on the right to cast politics in the fame of the supposed liberal elite vs the workers? So binary and simplistic.
How much...time do elites spend discussing pronouns and white supremacy, versus a) how much do normal people care about these things (almost zero) and b) how big are these problems exactly (also almost zero)?
When is the last time you saw politicians debate university costs? The average cost of attending a four-year college or university in the United States rose by 500+% between the 1985-86 and 2020. That is DOUBLE the rate of inflation. So, why is this happening and what is the plan to reign in these costs? *crickets*.
I could walk you through a dozen issues where there is the same thing - big problems that need fixing and elites out to lunch, and a dozen issues elites spend inordinate amounts of time fussing over, that are completely meaningless to normal people.
Re New England and wind power, see https://www.maine.gov/energy/sites/maine.gov.energy/files/inline-files/Energy-Profile-final.pdf, where you will find on page 39 the dismal capacity factors for wind. New England is a particularly stupid place to build wind turbines.
Net Zero will be more difficult to sell to the public, when one simple fact becomes known:
.
Climate Change's last 50 years have resulted in C-O-O-L-E-R summers in much of the USA.
.
And in the UK over 95% of climate warming has happened in the summer.
Here In the UK the impact has initially been wetter winters and drier summers. The UK is complex because we benefit from the Gulf Stream (keeps us warmer than we should be given how north the British isles are) which risks disruption from global warming.
I think you Net-zero critics still don’t get it, try as you might.
Net-zero is intended for _them_, the power elites ((in both senses of ‘power’). They are the ones who will have access to ‘green’ energy, ‘clean’ fuels… solar, wind, tidal, biofuel, etc.
The rest of us can suck heat, starve and die. There’s enough to go around for an established elite, and their ‘willing’, hard-working servants.
—
To be sure the aggregate global energy and resource demand needs to get smaller, and this necessarily will have to come with trade-offs (which some will see as sacrifice). As things stand, though, the trade-offs are intended to be differentially shared. What the Rosy Goal-zero types believe in their hearts is that they will be at the top of the pyramid, and not at the bottom.
You have it right. Since abandoning Judeo-Christian religion, we have switched to the man-is-bad environmental religion. The new one is particularly convenient because we can make others atone for our own sins. In Christianity and Judaism, we must each atone for our own sins.
Don’t misunderstand me. It’s the wealthy power elites of _both_ ‘parties’ or ‘sides’ who think like this, whether or not they profess to believe in Judeo-Christian values or not.
More about Vaclav Smil's outlook on the subject and less about Robert Bryce's would have been interesting.
Thanks for the trenchant comments regarding decision makers from Vaclav Smil. Your previous essay motivated me to purchase a copy of Smil's 2015 book on Power Density. CGNP regularly emails Attorney Jennifer Hernandez. We love her "Green Jim Crow" quote.
Riddle me this Batman? Where did the 1.5 degree come from?
Part false data. Part solar insolation.
Which part?
https://planetaryvision.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-tyndalls-experiment-does-not-prove.html
Greenhouse theory (and radiation theory as a whole) presents a paradox and contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Its premise claims molecular nitrogen and oxygen (99 percent of the dry atmosphere) do not transfer (emit or absorb infrared) radiation at any temperature; however, all matter above absolute zero Kelvin radiates IR photons, and ‘air’ is a very poor thermal conductor of heat (0.0262 W/(m K)) – so how does it transfer heat?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory
Can't argue with that.
Progressivism has run out of ideas and has defaulted to regressivisim to find sanctuary in old and contested ideas as well as in new unproven and scientistic endeavors.
The environmental/sustainability discourse is the exemplar of putting the cart before the horse.
This divide and woeful ignorance is what happens after decades of lackluster stem focus in education and when our academia at all levels are so captured by ideology that deny basic human biology. Trump may override some of these mandates but will face an unending barrage of negative media push back. We have to go completely school choice to dig our way out of this morass of stupid.
For most of my life I have marveled at the lack of an answer to this question- ‘Do you know what the Haber/Bosche process is.’
Literally the most import discovery of the last century or so.
what a wonderful work we have moved far beyond science as we believe phrases like zero emission solutions come from engineers but must be in partnership with policy makers so well written i thank you
Mmm, wouldn't the availability of cheaper renewable energy benefit the working class? Wouldn't it lower the cost-of-living and free-up more funds for everyone, but especially the poor, who spend a great proportion of their income on necessities?
In a word...NO. "Cheap renewables" is an oxymoron. That is why Vaclav Smil called "bullshit" on net zero.
You need to read essays like Orr's "Cooking the Books," a two-part series on the hidden costs of renewables. Or Jim Conca's publication last year in Nuclear News, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples". (https://www.ans.org/news/article-5024/how-to-compare-energy-sourcesapples-to-apples/) That is one of the best, most practical explanations and cost comparisons of energy sources I've found.
Also look at Epstein's work, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." Shellenberger has also argued that renewables are more expensive than fossil. Smil's book on power density would also be an excellent primer for you to understand why renewables aren't cheap.
You want to benefit the working class, then make more energy available, and at lower prices and not encumbered by government policy. You will never raise people from poverty by making their energy more expensive or less reliable. Look at "The amount of energy, in the form of access to electricity, needed to eradicate global poverty," again by Jim Conca, published in Forbes 27 June 2018.
The availability of energy, brought about by the technological expansion of fossil fuels over the past 150 years have brought about dramatic improvements in global life expectancy, per capita income, food security, crop yields, and various health-related metrics. It constantly amazes me that the renewables crowd fail to understand or even acknowledge the existence of such metrics.
But the costs to be paid until renewables are economical will hurt the working class. We are years away, if ever, from renewables reaching that point.
How do they further "hurt" the working class? The working class is already paying into tax funds which subsidize the fossil fuel industry. Please explain this dogma that investment in renewables burdens the working class.
Well, this is considerably dumbed down, but here goes:
1) Power plants are expensive. A natural gas power plant might cost $500 million and last 30 years.
2) Most power plants are built on borrowed money (see above). That way these huge costs can be spread over many users over a long period of time, giving everyone lower power costs.
3) Only <1/3 of the natural gas power plant costs is fuel. Most of my cost is tied up in the capital costs, the interest, and the transmission costs.
4) Now add in renewables. Say the renewables cost 2/3 as much when they are generating power, and the nat gas plant steps in when they are not. a) I still have the capital costs, interest, and transmission costs to pay for, meaning most of the cost from the plant is unchanged. I'm paying for cheap solar and wind + 3/4 of the cost for the nat gas plant. That makes the energy MORE expensive than it would have been absent the solar and wind, even when the solar and wind is cheaper.
5) A battery doesn't help - there is no possible way for a battery to store enough energy to ditch the nat gas plant.
6) Since I have to gather the renewable energy from a wide area, my transmission costs also go up.
7) I could build more wind and solar, but the math says I'll need about 10X my demand for this to work, which also increases costs.
8) this is why wind and solar usage correlates so closely to electricity costs - more wind and solar = higher retail costs.
Nobody has a path out of this mess, and fundamental physics says there is no path out, since the core of the problem is routed in energy density and availability.
Old saying, opinions are like assholes, everyone had one and most of then stink.
Project 2025 may be the darling of the extreme right, but 75% of the population does not agree, and that's not an opinion.
Regarding the "green" energy movement, all should be in tune with Alex Epstein's books Moral Case For Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future !