Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Climate policies range from inanity to insanity
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/resto...o-insanity

EXCERPTS: The “war” on fossil fuels by activists and bureaucrats is much like how people describe an LSD trip: exhilarating, completely unreal, and possibly dangerous...

[...] We would need about 375,000 new wind turbines (up from 3,000 per year now) at $3 million each, or more than $1 trillion. At $400,000 per acre of solar panels, that cost is about $3 trillion. This doesn’t take into account land cost and maintenance or the price escalation for raw materials required for the fabrication of the turbines and solar panels due to increased demand. It also ignores the greenhouse gas emissions from the mining itself.

The killer is backup. With the decommissioning of fossil fuels, the only practical solution for calm, clouds, and nighttime is batteries...

[...] the very best case is a 4% reduction in global greenhouse emissions. Meanwhile, China and India have nearly 10 times the number of coal-fired power plants as the U.S. and continue to build while we decommission ours...

Moreover, all of this is before the increased demand in power to electrify cars, factories, homes, and businesses further, which in turn will require upgrading the entire electrical grid — trillions of dollars more to upgrade transmission and connection facilities as well as still more wind or solar.

Just a fraction of the money wasted on the current LSD trip would be far better invested in “geoengineering” mitigation of the effects of climate change, which have never proved to be remotely as dire as the prophets of Armageddon have predicted. They might include, for example, projects such as reforestation; the Amazon provides 20% of the world’s oxygen while consuming carbon dioxide.

The true insanity, however, is ignoring very real opportunities for small-scale nuclear power. That clean source of energy is on the cusp of a major revolution in availability, cost reduction, and safety, if only we put aside our irrational fears. Our Navy has operated more than 150 nuclear-powered vessels for decades without incident... (MORE - missing details)
'Net zero' is a bit like going to the moon - if you don't see the point of it then its a just a stupid thing to want to do.
Addressing some points..
The UK cut down on coal use to reduce local pollution - by building coal-fired power stations the Chinese aren't (locally) doing themselves any favours regardless of any global issues.
I'm looking at an electrically heated thermal store to heat one house with the intention of charging it up when electricity is cheap - this isn't exactly rocket science but does require the infrastructure to sell and buy electricity at the spot price rather than a price agreed months in advance. There is already a scheme to incentivise (?) people to use electricity outside of peak demand times.
I thought Kornee posted a thread about the real cost of fossil fuels but I can't find it now. Think of a number of trillions of dollars and compare it with another 'think of a number of trillions of dollars' and you have the basis of an economic policy.
Nuke stations are wonderful - write 'target' on them and you're good to go.
(Apr 12, 2023 03:55 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]'Net zero' is a bit  like going to the moon - if you don't see the point of it then its a just a stupid thing to want to do.
Addressing some points..
The UK cut down on coal use to reduce local pollution - by building coal-fired power stations the Chinese aren't (locally) doing themselves any favours regardless of any global issues.
I'm looking at an electrically heated thermal store to heat one house with the intention of charging it up when electricity is cheap - this isn't exactly rocket science but does require the infrastructure to sell and buy electricity at the spot price rather than a price agreed months in advance. There is already a scheme to incentivise (?) people to use electricity outside of peak demand times.
I thought Kornee posted a thread about the real cost of fossil fuels but I can't find it now. Think of a number of trillions of dollars and compare it with another 'think of a number of trillions of dollars' and you have the basis of an economic policy.
Nuke stations are wonderful - write 'target' on them and you're good to go.

https://www.scivillage.com/thread-13925-...l#pid57469
Thanks CC.* The headline figure for fossil fuels is 6 trillion dollars - I haven't watched the thing so can't say how or why but it is a good 'think of a number' figure.

* Some of us have a problem with the spelling of 'subsidising' Smile
(Apr 12, 2023 05:11 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ][...] * Some of us have a problem with the spelling of 'subsidising' Smile


No surprise with respect to Australia, NZ, etc valiantly retaining the orthographical traditions of the bygone imperial domain. But the shocker is India having slipped so badly with respect to the ratio. Canada was a lost cause ages ago, of course, what with the influences of that neighbor to the south.

Subsidize or Subsidise?
https://sapling.ai/usage/subsidize-vs-subsidise
  • In the United States, there is a preference for "subsidize" over "subsidise" (97 to 3).
  • In the United Kingdom, there is a 81 to 19 preference for "subsidise" over "subsidize".
  • In India, there is a preference for "subsidize" over "subsidise" (57 to 43).
  • In the Philippines, there is a preference for "subsidize" over "subsidise" (90 to 10).
  • In Canada, there is a preference for "subsidize" over "subsidise" (92 to 8).
  • In Australia, there is a 81 to 19 preference for "subsidise" over "subsidize".
  • In Liberia, there is not enough data to determine a preference between "subsidize" and "subsidise".
  • In Ireland, there is a 100 to 0 preference for "subsidise" over "subsidize".
  • In New Zealand, there is a 73 to 27 preference for "subsidise" over "subsidize".
  • In Jamaica, there is not enough data to determine a preference between "subsidize" and "subsidise".
  • In Trinidad & Tobago, there is not enough data to determine a preference between "subsidize" and "subsidise".
  • In Guyana, there is not enough data to determine a preference between "subsidize" and "subsidise".
Here in the UK we've stuck with the original Greek 'z' meaning something to do with animals.

Zebra - an animal
Zoo - contains animals (may include zebras)
Zoo+ - animal related things
Buzz - noise made by an insect/animal
Seized - carried away by animals
Seizure - being carried away by animals
Size - how big an animal is

I think that covers it.