Lengthy about info, briefly on reality - watts with that?

By Gordon Grab

Three authors in the magazine external affairs skip an important truth: the once Ballyhooed, but now disturbing “energy transition” was and remains unnecessary and undesirable.

Instead, the title of the article “The restless energy transfer: How to find a pragmatic path forwards”, (1), that the so -called transition has legitimacy and (2) that it should still happen somehow. Both are wrong.

The authors are prestigious men: Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winner-energy historian; Peter Orszack, chairman and CEO of Lazard; And Atul Arya, Chief Energy Strategist at S&P Global. In their essay with 5,000 words, topics are discussed in detail, but the language is less than direct and misses the heart of many affairs.

For example, the authors compare the shift to “green” energy from fossil fuels, with coal replacing wood from the 18th century and overtaking in the 1960s as a dominant fuel in the 1960s. As you determine, the energy sources will continue to be used far into the transitions, just like the fossil fuels were used in today's introduction of alternatives.

However, the article contains a short shrinkage of the energy density or how much work can be extracted from a unit of an energy source. In earlier transitions, subsequent sources in far smaller quantities were required than forms were replaced to do the same amount of work – coal better than wood, oil better than coal and uranium that does everything.

With regard to the alleged transition from today, the article simply states that “improved functions and lower costs … are not yet available in large parts of the entire energy system”.

This really means that wind, solar, green hydrogen, etc. are absolutely useless if it delivers large population groups with reliable, affordable energy and that physics and chemistry do not provide credible evidence of their ability to ever overfill this role. For example, wind and solar require a multiple country and material to create the same amount of electricity as coal and nuclear power plants. For this reason, green energy also fails with massive subsidies.

The authors say about the difficulty of finance environmentally friendly dreams: “Part of the problem is mere costs: many trillion dollars, with great uncertainty about who should pay.” There are lack of incentives for private investments, state -based carbon taxes are problematic, and the population of the rich still poor countries can afford to pay for it.

It is not stated that earlier transitions of inventors, investors, engineers, mechanics and mechanics were powered that use new fuels in order to work more efficiently with new machines and processes. New energy sources were developed organically and according to the laws of nature and economy and not the dictations of the deceived drunken about the power derived from state sponsorship.

Bonheaded “climate policy” of national governments have messed up things. Energy has become more expensive and less available in places such as Germany and California, which leads to predictable economic destruction. This is a truth that has to be said loudly, again and again by more clever people.

The most fundamental failure of the writers is their pretext that it is a worthy mission to only need a “pragmatic path forward” to move from fossil fuels to achieve “net zero emissions”. The opposite is true.

Mountains of geological and historical evidence and modern research of atmospheric physics show that:

Increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution, the gas has brought to optimal values for plant growth. Harvest production has improved and the global ecosystems have green. We should put more CO2 in the air, not less.
Modern warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented. The Vikings grown morn in Greenland 1,000 years ago, and the Romans showed citrus fruits in northern England 2,000 years ago. Today it is too cold in both places to do.
The Fearmoon ginging via the “greenhouse effect” is based on exaggerations of the warming potential of CO2 and other gases as well as on faulty computer models that have been repeatedly refuted by real data. Due to a phenomenon of the declining returns, even a doubling of the CO2 from the electricity concentration would only lead to a modest, advantageous warming.

We will not guess why such login information would overlook these well -established facts and at the same time maintain the wrong premise of a decades of disaster in public order. But there is no “pragmatic way forward” for a false energy transfer, and the authors should know better.

Like this:

Related

Do you discover more from watts?

By Mans Life Daily