Brilliant and many thanks ! New paper on climate emergency hoax -
''If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO 2 level and the earth’s temperature.''
This is the only argument required - "2.3 There is no “Climate Emergency”. Much like the fact that for the majority of people there is no risk from COVID so there is simply no need for them to even consider the "vaccine", there is no need for anyone to consider anything else about net zero if there is no anthropogenic impact on climate?
Yes, in a rational world. Unfortunately the scammers then come up with their 'precautionary principle' nonsense and claim that we can clean up the planet at no cost - "so what's the harm in doing this stuff anyway?"
Hopefully, by showing people the real costs, we can help at least some people to see the whole thing for the hustle it is.
Netzerowatch calculate costs of £10 trillion. If you add in the economic damage from a substantial fall in the real standard of living it's probably a multiple of that.
The Net Zero Watch report is not sufficiently detailed or transparent for me to meaningfully comment. I generally respect the work NZW have done over the years, but they are accountants / finance people, not energy industry experts. No "solution" makes any sense, but no scenario involving trillions spent on storage should be entertained, even briefly.
We have recently updated our figures (total £3.4 Trillion) in a fully detailed and transparent paper (71 pages) - see here https://sites.google.com/view/the-lpf/home - but there are still 2 areas (at least) where constructive criticism would be fair:
1. Our guesstimate for out of scope items naturally has a significant margin of error.
2. It can reasonably be argued that the UK doesn't have enough shallow water sites for a 300+GW fixed bottom wind fleet, & that floating offshore would therefore be required at much greater expense. But any attempt to estimate that in detail would be highly speculative at this point.
Note that we have been careful only to include the 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 costs of NZ, & not to double count anything. But your own point is the critical one - the fallout from the socio-economic impact of a bankrupt Britain would be an order of magnitude greater than the direct costs.
Wow. I have to wonder whether a disclaimer as to your financing is needed (please take that as a compliment btw)
It is also a reflection on the IEE, an Institution that should have led the takedown of Net Zero, but didn't.
A minor contribution I can make is to highlight the timescales to be considered. IF, by some magical process, nuclear fusion became viable today, as one way out of the quandry, then, say five years for a pilot plant, ten years for the first at scale, thirty years to make a difference, with money and resources we do not have, and a political will that is AWOL.
Lol. Other than a recent handful of generous paid subscribers on here, my "financing" is zero. I am truly independent.
Agreed on optimistic fusion timescales - but Net Zero is about far more than just generation capacity, as described, which is why I say it's not possible, at least in the UK.
I sometimes think there is massive potential in installing rows of solar panels along and over motorways, by the hard shoulders, along the central reservation, or even roofing over the entire motorway with reinforced netting or a system of struts and using the entire surface for solar panels. The area covered would be huge, literally hundreds of square miles for the latter panel roof system I would have thought. Also, this setup would be fairly secure, easy to upgrade, and presumably not that hard to connect to the grid. Like any solution though, it obviously wouldn't be cheap!
It would be more practical if the motorway roof solar "panels" could actually be made of flexible material such as a thin layer embedded in something like clear nylon strips, so those over a motorway could be rolled up, or reefed in some way like sails, in the event of high winds or snow etc.
On my blog I mention another idea, FWIW, or supposition more like, that in a hundred years ICE vehicles will still be going strong and using hydrocarbons produced ab initio from solar power collected by huge tankers at sea, surrounded by vast floating mats of solar panels: https://highranges.com/
(Another article there shows images of what William the Conqueror and his immediate successors very likely looked like, although that is off-topic here!)
From memory, the old 'received wisdom' of the power industry was that we had enough coal for 300 years - when we were producing about 60% of our electricity from coal. We were also using gas for heating of course, and petroleum products for transport.
What is 'economically recoverable' depends of course on the relative costs (and geo-political risks) of alternatives.
We also have a fair amount of oil and gas 'resources' remaining but, again, the real question is about what is the volume of technically and economically recoverable 'proven reserves' - which varies as technology advances and with the definition of 'economic'.
In short, we could easily continue for 50-100 years with fossil fuels. Longer term, as we infer in the article, nuclear has the potential to provide the lion's share of our energy needs, but that won't happen in the mooted Net Zero timescales, nor anything close. Eventually, fusion will become technically feasible - but there is no way of knowing how long that will take.
it seems your research reveals the same data as my research, which is that oil gas and coal reserves will eventually run out.
My feeling is that global warming is the cover story for reserves running out. But why don't governments just tell the truth?
I presume that there must be a clandestine agenda, unrelated to CO2 or power generation because nuclear power solves the supposed CO2 problem and delivers the energy requirements simply, and provides a known outcome and appears to be the obvious choice.
Pointing out the flaws in the advertised government plan is a good start. Now to figure out what this is really all about.....🤔
This is an excellent and eye opening summation that deserves more traction. Sharing.
Brilliant and many thanks ! New paper on climate emergency hoax -
''If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO 2 level and the earth’s temperature.''
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/47745
This is the only argument required - "2.3 There is no “Climate Emergency”. Much like the fact that for the majority of people there is no risk from COVID so there is simply no need for them to even consider the "vaccine", there is no need for anyone to consider anything else about net zero if there is no anthropogenic impact on climate?
Yes, in a rational world. Unfortunately the scammers then come up with their 'precautionary principle' nonsense and claim that we can clean up the planet at no cost - "so what's the harm in doing this stuff anyway?"
Hopefully, by showing people the real costs, we can help at least some people to see the whole thing for the hustle it is.
Netzerowatch calculate costs of £10 trillion. If you add in the economic damage from a substantial fall in the real standard of living it's probably a multiple of that.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/net-zero-could-cost-300000-per-household
The message is still the same: it's insane to attempt net zero.
The Net Zero Watch report is not sufficiently detailed or transparent for me to meaningfully comment. I generally respect the work NZW have done over the years, but they are accountants / finance people, not energy industry experts. No "solution" makes any sense, but no scenario involving trillions spent on storage should be entertained, even briefly.
We have recently updated our figures (total £3.4 Trillion) in a fully detailed and transparent paper (71 pages) - see here https://sites.google.com/view/the-lpf/home - but there are still 2 areas (at least) where constructive criticism would be fair:
1. Our guesstimate for out of scope items naturally has a significant margin of error.
2. It can reasonably be argued that the UK doesn't have enough shallow water sites for a 300+GW fixed bottom wind fleet, & that floating offshore would therefore be required at much greater expense. But any attempt to estimate that in detail would be highly speculative at this point.
Note that we have been careful only to include the 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 costs of NZ, & not to double count anything. But your own point is the critical one - the fallout from the socio-economic impact of a bankrupt Britain would be an order of magnitude greater than the direct costs.
Regards,
John
Wow. I have to wonder whether a disclaimer as to your financing is needed (please take that as a compliment btw)
It is also a reflection on the IEE, an Institution that should have led the takedown of Net Zero, but didn't.
A minor contribution I can make is to highlight the timescales to be considered. IF, by some magical process, nuclear fusion became viable today, as one way out of the quandry, then, say five years for a pilot plant, ten years for the first at scale, thirty years to make a difference, with money and resources we do not have, and a political will that is AWOL.
Lol. Other than a recent handful of generous paid subscribers on here, my "financing" is zero. I am truly independent.
Agreed on optimistic fusion timescales - but Net Zero is about far more than just generation capacity, as described, which is why I say it's not possible, at least in the UK.
Excellent piece John.
Thank you!
I sometimes think there is massive potential in installing rows of solar panels along and over motorways, by the hard shoulders, along the central reservation, or even roofing over the entire motorway with reinforced netting or a system of struts and using the entire surface for solar panels. The area covered would be huge, literally hundreds of square miles for the latter panel roof system I would have thought. Also, this setup would be fairly secure, easy to upgrade, and presumably not that hard to connect to the grid. Like any solution though, it obviously wouldn't be cheap!
It would be more practical if the motorway roof solar "panels" could actually be made of flexible material such as a thin layer embedded in something like clear nylon strips, so those over a motorway could be rolled up, or reefed in some way like sails, in the event of high winds or snow etc.
On my blog I mention another idea, FWIW, or supposition more like, that in a hundred years ICE vehicles will still be going strong and using hydrocarbons produced ab initio from solar power collected by huge tankers at sea, surrounded by vast floating mats of solar panels: https://highranges.com/
(Another article there shows images of what William the Conqueror and his immediate successors very likely looked like, although that is off-topic here!)
"non-thermal renewables"? what on this planet is that? is "thermal renewables" the same as gas engines? or heat from inside the earth?
5th paragraph in: "non-thermal renewables (mostly wind and solar)"
Thermal renewables = biomass (wood pellets etc.). Stuff that's burnt basically.
Hi John, I want to ask, do you think that we have an infinite source of hydrocarbons to use for fuel?
If not how soon should we prepare for them to run out?
However, If you think we won't run out of coal and gas and oil, is there any data to back up this position?
PS, I agree there is no global warming or climate emergency.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
The UK has plenty of coal, possibly as much as 187 billion tonnes.
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/united-kingdom/
From memory, the old 'received wisdom' of the power industry was that we had enough coal for 300 years - when we were producing about 60% of our electricity from coal. We were also using gas for heating of course, and petroleum products for transport.
What is 'economically recoverable' depends of course on the relative costs (and geo-political risks) of alternatives.
We also have a fair amount of oil and gas 'resources' remaining but, again, the real question is about what is the volume of technically and economically recoverable 'proven reserves' - which varies as technology advances and with the definition of 'economic'.
In short, we could easily continue for 50-100 years with fossil fuels. Longer term, as we infer in the article, nuclear has the potential to provide the lion's share of our energy needs, but that won't happen in the mooted Net Zero timescales, nor anything close. Eventually, fusion will become technically feasible - but there is no way of knowing how long that will take.
I hope this helps?
Hi John, thanks for your prompt reply.
it seems your research reveals the same data as my research, which is that oil gas and coal reserves will eventually run out.
My feeling is that global warming is the cover story for reserves running out. But why don't governments just tell the truth?
I presume that there must be a clandestine agenda, unrelated to CO2 or power generation because nuclear power solves the supposed CO2 problem and delivers the energy requirements simply, and provides a known outcome and appears to be the obvious choice.
Pointing out the flaws in the advertised government plan is a good start. Now to figure out what this is really all about.....🤔
"After accounting for waste heat at power stations and other losses, around 1,500 TWh"
So what,exactly, is your point? Other than meaningless chaff.