According to Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute:
- “A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant.
“So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons.
“This ‘new energy economy’ rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the ‘Green New Deal’ and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency. But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information.
“In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software.
“This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a ‘new energy economy.’”
Mills’ report should be required reading for advocates of the ‘New Energy Economy,’ the ‘Green New Deal,’ and all climate change control advocates with a background in computer technology. Moore’s Law does not apply to large energy production and distribution systems. Such systems are limited by basic physics.
There is also a particular need for such people to understand the difficulties of transforming intermittent energy sources. such as wind and solar, into the dependable sources of electrical energy that most users desire and need. Until the physical constraints addressed by Mills are recognized by so-called “environmentalists,” the general public should ignore their pronouncements and policy advocacy. They are not based on sound physics and engineering.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4956 […]
“They are not based on sound physics and engineering.” nor are they based on sound economics as noted in a new post over at institute-
https://www.city-journal.org/stossel/green-new-deal
Recently heard some lefty saying nobody could eat hamburgers because of climate change. How pathetic is that? Democrats cannot win with such ridiculous negative views.
Trump is in a very strong position. Economy strong thanks to tax cuts and cutting regulations. The Russian collusion hoax has died and hoaxers will be investigated and prosecuted. 20 democrats are running, a ridiculous herd who express no practical useful ideas.
The conservative press will report every stupid utterance by Dems. Joe Biden’s son was pocketing millions from the Ukraine. The dems support open borders and government benefits for illegal aliens.
The Dems are running on the worst platform in US history, while their Russian collusion hoax unravels and is prosecuted.
Can trump expose the climate hoax too? Why not? Let’s make Doc Carlin so sick of winning, he petitions the Boss to ease up on the loonies.
The seasons change. Flowers are starting to bloom, bringing visual delight. We can give thanks to rays from the Sun paired with carbon dioxide. These combine to enable photosynthesis to make plants and trees and grasses for grazing.
We also seem to have entered the silly season of campaigning by left wingers en route to an election in November 2020.
Though this web site focuses on the climate change hoax, it should not escape notice that this pernicious cause is by no means isolated but rather just one element within a host of bad ideas being pushed by the herd of left wing aspirants.
This presents an interesting context of many other bad ideas potentially doing some collateral damage to the credibility of the climate hoax.
Out of the closet socialist Bernie wants to give votes to jail birds. Why? Even Cher is baffled by this lunacy.
Reparations for slavery. Free college. Open borders. Free health care. Many more Ill considered ideas that are not very popular.
2019 and 2020 may turn out to be good years for the President to proceed with the scientific appraisal of the threat posed by carbon dioxide. We have been told co2 is bad or bad in excess, though it enables flowers, trees, grasses, crops to eat, and oxygen to inhale.
This is a monstrously ridiculous claim and it deserves to be fully heard along with other lunatic notions upon which a horde of democrat pretenders are running.
This donkey race is not just Obama versus Hillary or Bernie versus Hillary. There are instead 20 candidates and they should unintentionally make an unfavorable impression by coming up with absurd promises that are hard to justify despite the loyal efforts of the Fake News press to sing their praises.
Accusing photosynthesis of constituting a big threat to life on Earth is imbecilic on scientific grounds. Only a party of lunatics would think this.
Their many many irresponsible and laughable ideas will be on full display between now and November 2020.
There is self centered rationality, among the alarmist leaders. they see gains to themselves by supporting the alarmist narrative.
In general, society needs electricity. Demand for electricity is “Inelastic” in the terminology of economics. Accordingly the importance of the energy sector provides reliable opportunities for politicians to tax it or to claim it needs regulation.
Politicians can claim they need to subsidize new technologies for electricity. This sounds forward thinking and ethical, even if without merit. This attracts voters who do no know much about climate or making electricity.
A lot of people Do not have training or time to become well informed about climate alarmism. They must trust to the New York Times or to a favorite political leader like Obama or Gore.
The persistence of a ridiculous false narrative within a political tribe does not imply the world is truly irrational, rather that it is self interested. Selfish self interest can cause a political party and it’s followers to endorse scientific nonsense.
Some innocents assume that because climate science is a science that it must be fairly thoughtful and well intended. Climate alarmist science is only political narratives masquerading as science.
One false narrative Was catastrophic warming. Socialists modified to that claim because too easily refuted by unending glaciers.
The lofty promise of renewables is a related False narrative.
The persistence of false narratives without persuasive supportive evidence indicates the power of tribalism and propaganda.