Guest satire by David Middleton
Protesters Jeer as Trump Team Promotes Coal at U.N. Climate Talks
By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
Nov. 13, 2017
BONN, Germany — The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.
The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.
George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when fossil fuels are used that they be as clean and efficient as possible,” Mr. Banks said. “This panel is controversial only if we chose to bury our heads in the sand.”
But even before the Trump team could make its case, the panel was disrupted for more than 10 minutes by scores of chanting and singing demonstrators. The protesters then walked out, leaving the room half empty. Throughout the remainder of the presentation, audience members shouted down and mocked White House officials who attempted to explain away President Trump’s stated view that global warming is a hoax.
[…]
The American presentation came the same day that a new study showed that emissions were rising worldwide after three years on a plateau. Researchers said the emissions growth was driven largely by increased burning of coal in China and India.
[…]
“Nuclear and carbon capture are critical to reducing CO2 emissions, but going to Bonn to promote the technologies without admitting climate change is a crisis is a logical absurdity,” said Josh Freed, director of the clean energy program at the centrist think tank Third Way.
[…]
Still, [Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank based in Washington] acknowledged, countries throughout Asia and Africa are continuing to build coal plants in their quest to provide energy access for millions living without electricity. “This is not wickedness on the part of these countries that want to get cheaper energy,” he said.
Trump administration officials made a similar point. “We need to lift one billion plus people out of energy poverty,” Mr. Banks said. He argued that while renewable energy has a “bright future,” only fossil fuels at the moment can deliver enough energy to allow people to rise out of poverty.
[…]
Officials from Bangladesh, which still gets most of its electricity from natural gas and has plans to build 25 new coal-fired plants by 2022, said they would welcome the use of technology to improve the efficiency of their coal plants as a steppingstone toward renewable energy.
[…]
Mr. Banuri said that Pakistan’s emissions were likely to grow in the coming decades as it lifts itself out of poverty, though the country is also making a big push on renewable energy and could do more if wealthier nations provided more aid to help drive down the cost of wind and solar even further.
But any nuanced discussions of energy policy were overshadowed by anger at the Trump administration for disengaging from the global community on climate change.
During a question-and-answer session, audience members pressed American officials to clarify the White House’s stance on climate change.
[…]
Let’s see… There appears to be a general consensus (among those referenced in the article) that:
- Coal will be the second or third largest energy source through at least the mid-21st century.
- Carbon capture and storage is “critical to reducing CO2 emissions”… (Even if it never really works, the U.S. is in an excellent position to profit from CCS).
- Nuclear power is the only carbon-free energy source that can actually replace coal and eventually natural gas.
- Lifting more than a billion people out of energy poverty is a “good thing.”
The U.S. delegation is in Bonn promoting nuclear power and clean coal technology… Yet they are shouted down by a bunch of “long-haired hippie type pinko [censored]”… because they won’t *admit* that “climate change is a crisis.”
With these zealots, the acknowledgement that human activities have contributed to the recent modest warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature, is insufficient. We must *admit* that “climate change is a crisis.” And our penance is to fork over as much of our money as they demand; so that they can redistribute it to Third World tin-horn dictators.
Clearly COP23 and the entire UNFCCC is not about finding solutions to what is, at worst, a minor problem. Their purpose is to exaggerate the problem in order to extort cash out of prosperous western democracies (very small-d), primarily from these tangentially United States of America. And this is all it has ever been… Just ask The Talking Heads of the IPCC and UNFCCC.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Same as it ever was…
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
—Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, February 2015
If climate change was actually a “crisis,” the solution is trivial: N2N – Natural gas to nuclear. Since it isn’t a crisis and coal will remain one of the top three sources of energy well-into the mid-21st century, it’s time to drop the renewables fantasy and focus on the energy sources that can actually power the world and lift a billion people out of enrgy poverty.
There has been a lot of idiotic babble about President Trump “paving the way for Chinese dominance in clean energy” by ditching Paris… When the real story is that Red China seems to be the only nation on Earth seriously pursuing nuclear power.
Nuclear Power in China
(Updated October 2017)
- Mainland China has 37 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 20 under construction, and more about to start construction.
- The reactors under construction include some of the world’s most advanced, to give a 70% increase of nuclear capacity to 58 GWe by 2020-21. Plans are for up to 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
- The impetus for nuclear power in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
- China’s policy is to have a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
- China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.
- Relative to the rest of the world, a major strength is the nuclear supply chain.
- China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain.
[…]
Pertinent coal and nuclear data from my previous post on COP23…
Chapter 4. Coal
Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.
[…]
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/figure_4-1.png
Figuring out ways to generate electricity from coal in a manner less impactful on the environment is a far more productive exercise than pretending that it will be replaced with solar panels, wind turbines, fairy dust and unicorn farts.
If there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change, the only player on the field large enough to do the tackling is N2N – natural gas to nuclear.
Case for the Good Reactor https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/
Massively unsustainable RE: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
Nuclear vs RE http://sarahwestall.com/nuclear-energy-and-global-climate-change-a-controversial-science-discussion/
The leftist elite’s hatred of Trump is so complete that if Trump announced that he himself is capable of eating nuclear waste thereby disposing of it safely and that the only byproduct was red, green and yellow skittles, the left would go apoplectic that there are no blue skittles and that shows that Trump is racist against Smurfs.
Sometimes the only way to deal with irrational, addicted people is to take away their source of addiction, which in the case of the CAGW, is someone else’s money.
A possible solution would be for America to place the Klimate Reparations into a US managed fund that isn’t distributed to other countries in the form of Klimate Ka$h but is rather used for energy construction projects worldwide utilizing 100% US workforce and 100% US products. Then the US IS doing something AND the US economy improves through increased (global market) jobs and increased local profits.
Shoshin: I agree with your diagnosis of irrationality, and your addict analogy, but I think money is just the enabler, not the source of addiction. The source is the messaging, and the addiction is the ‘warm fuzzy’.
You can cut off a meth-addict’s money, and they will find other ways to get their fix, because the money is just the means to the end. You have to take away the high – the warm fuzzy – and impress upon them the real-world damage they cause, and that they are actually acting selfishly, simply in order to ‘feel good’ (and what better analogy to a ‘high’ than that?).
‘Trump is racist against Smurfs.’
I knew it. I knew it all the time, and now you have confirmed it. Correlation between Smurf decline and Trump’s rise to wealth and power is irrefutable. Therefore he caused it. Moreover, they die as CO2 levels rise.
Save the Smurfs from Trump’s genocide.
Joel,
Astute point. Cut off their employement, go on welfare, cut off their welfare, they’ll steal.
It’s similar to my stance on ‘needle exchange’ programs. Complete waste of taxpayer money and merely enables the “warm fuzzy”.
Hey, I can heroin without worry of HIV & Hepatitis!
*can do heroin
Well-said.
How the green zealots keep them self warm in Bonn:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/how-green-delegates-keep-warm-in-bonn/
Follow the Rebel Media at the UN Conference. Sadly hilarious the hypocrisy.
https://www.therebel.media/rebel-un-bonn
Let us stop using that weird word “impactful”.
I like that word almost as much as I like problematic and dissuasive. But, my all-time favorite word is obviate.
David M
How about fascipulation? That is a combination of manipulation and facilitation. It is the technique frequently employed in climate and environment-related discussions and conferences. It is akin to the planting of 10 trained people in a crowd who can control the whole agenda by the careful use of interjections. The difference is that fascipulators are not planted in the crowd, they are on the stage running the show.
Other modern ignorantisms are:
A “PIN number” or even a “PIN identification number”
and
An “ATM machine”.
That’s a word INXS missed.
There is NO accounting for taste: I actually very much like those three “impactful” words … but, being the respectful bloke which I am, I will try not to use them in your presence; however and further, for my ear, I agree with ripshin below … as I have issues with “learnings”. Haha!
PS: FYI … to perhaps help with perspective, I am a career petroleum geologist, “tiny” oil producer, and life-long pro-freedom American.
Me too. “Little Oil” rocks!
“Utilize”
David,
As a strong adherent to linguistics, [i]problematic[/I] makes me want to punch babies.
You either have a [I]problem[/I], or a subject than causes a) an enduring [I]problem[/I], b) a continual [I]problem[/I]
So help me you SJWs…
Any time I can tack ‘matic’ on to the end of a word, I go for It! It’s almost as much fun as inserting ‘fracking’ as a middle syllable… 😎
Apparently can’t italicize via phone…
Use instead of [ ].
Continuing Cripin’s “modern ignorantisms”: pdf file
Would you like your ignorantism with au jus?
No… but I’ll take a side of neologism.
Not sure what is wrong with problematic.
The word has been in use for over 400 years.
What, pray do tell, is unlinguistical about it?
It’s not like ‘impactful’… which only dates back to 1947.
People that want to punch babies, or joke about it, make me want to see involuntary commitment reinstituted,
I hate to admit that I thought “dead baby jokes” were funny.
Vicus—you have to use angle brackets around your tags.
> Apparently can’t italicize via phone…
See the test page, link at top to https://wattsupwiththat.com/test/
The word does seem to bother you. Do you need more fiber in your diet?
Ugh…my nomination is “learnings”. As in, “Let’s take all our ‘learnings’ from this incident…”
rip
I guess you didn’t get learned up in skool much, did you?
Well, that would be unprecedented.
Or how the far left would prefer the nation
UnPresidented
Whilst I have no qualms about either rising levels of CO2, or warming temperatures, there is only one effective form of CCS, and that is natural biomass.
And in that regard, the planet is naturally greening and doing so at a rate faster than man is deforesting.
If there is any agenda to be pushed, it should be to seek to restrict deforestation, and the conversion of grain for fuel, and the burning of trees, or other biomass such as peat.
There is no significant problem in burning coal, but far better to use gas as much as possible. the agenda should be to promote fracking as the US is doing.
the irony is that even though the US has pulled out of Paris, the US will do more than any other developed nation to reduce its CO2 emissions because of its policy on fracking, whereas for example countries in Europe are doing their utmost to restrict or even prohibit fracking. What a crazy world we live in.
+1
It is the trillions of dollars we will save by pulling out of that wealth sharing fiasco. Kind of like the old methods of pulling out instead of putting on a condom to keep from having an abortion.
No agenda should be pushed at all. A warmer climate is a better climate, and you need only read about history during cold climate periods (at least, before the history books get “revised” by the Climate Fascists ala “1984”) to know this.
Strange how Europeans (and Icelanders) grow their winter veggies in greenhouses with added light, heat and CO2 gas to around 1200 ppmv.
The really strange thing is how large numbers of people somehow came to believe, with no actual argument given or persuasion needed, that warming of the climate regimes of the Earth was in any way harmful.
All that was ever given was an assertion, and it was accepted uncritically as being categorically true, virtually overnight.
That so many people are so easily led astray it is baffling and probably the most worrisome part of the whole CAGW steaming pile of hyena vomit.
*Being that hyenas are scavengers and voracious eaters of putrid carrion, their vomit is about the stinkiest, stickiest and slipperiest substance possible.
** It is said that hyena vomit makes fermented goat urine smell and taste like a fresh mint julip.
A warmer climate is indeed a better climate. CO2, however, doesn’t seem to affect the climate at all.
Irrespective of how much warming is good… The prudent course of action would be to focus on adapting to whatever the weather, climate and sea level do over time.
More CO2 has, at most, a minor warming effect and a minor effect on marine geochemistry.
The only logical reason to reduce CO2 emissions and/or try to sequester CO2, is that fact that, by burning fossil fuels, we are taking CO2 out of geologic sequestration and putting it into the active carbon cycle. This is a cumulative process. While, there’s no “climate change crisis” or urgent need to reduce our net carbon emissions, it is a prudent long-term goal.
I personally like putting a couple of trees in my fireplace every winter.
A well managed woodlot will yield two cords of hardwood per annum per acre. Not bad on an individual basis. Not sufficient for a greater than a small village’s population.
Turns out a decent hurricane will yield quite a bit of usable wood too.
But . . . but . . . but without the burning of peat, therre would be no Scotch whisky! Let’s be having none of that heresy here!
Natural biomass is not just the only effective means of sequestration, it may also be the only safe means . Lake Nyos (Cameroon, 1986) CO2 release instantly killed nearly 2000 humans and many thousands more large air breathing mammals. Think of the risk of pumping tens of billions of tons of this life giving stuff into underground caverns. Terrorist dream, societal nightmare.
Totally irrelevant.
There is no analogy between a lake over-turning and an oil reservoir trapped under thousands of feet of impermeable rock.
The CO2 isn’t pumped into “underground caverns.” It’s pumped into oil reservoirs.
http://neori.org/resources-on-co2-eor/safety/
Totally relevant. Lake Nyos also shows us that the CO2 from volcanos and natural seeps is orders of magnitude greater than Warmist Science admits.
OK… Relevant in a totally different manner. Lake Nyos is an actual example of dangerous CO2.
However, totally non-analogous to CO2 pumped into depleted oil reservoirs under thousands of feet of impermeable rock.
Could an earthquake provide an escape for sequestered CO2 in its vicinity?
Only if it’s “sequestered” in lake bottom sediments.
Agree with David Middleton here.
I see no reason to spend a single penny needlessly burying or otherwise hiding a single molecule of life-giving CO2 as long as the atmosphere is so dangerously short of it, but facts are facts and erratum is not.
BTW…is carbonate rock or shells in marine sediment considered “biomass”?
The very best place for CO2 is in the atmosphere.
And the very best way of putting it there is using fossil fuels..
…because you have the side-benefit of a solid electricity supply and easy reliable transport. 🙂
The very, very best place for anthropogenic CO2 is putting it back in the ground to get even more fossil fuel.
As papers have been here on WUWT of how the Earth is becoming greener. Imagine if all that CO2 that has been Sequestered because of the Alarmist was actually let out into the atmosphere, how much greener it would be right now.
Does anyone know where I can find a study that I can trust not to have been bastardized for politics sake that provides at least a hint as to how much the 280 parts per million pre-industrial CO2 was contributing to the average global temperature.
Everything that I have been able to find indicates strongly that at that time, CO2 WAS LESS THAN 1% OF THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF GREENHOUSE GASES that were present in the atmosphere. IF that is correct, then CO2 is somewhere between 1% and 2% of the greenhouse gases that are currently present in the atmosphere. Those numbers seem to check out if atmospheric water vapor is included rather than basing the calculations on what seems to me to be the non-existent, or fantasy, condition called a “dry atmosphere.”
If you find any, let us known. No one as a clue about what would be the temperature without GHG except water. You only find the lunatic assertion that -18°C would be surface temperature instead of TOA temperature
Interesting comment,but if there was no atmosphere ,therefore no gases,(‘greenhouse ‘or otherwise ,)the temperatures would mimic those of the moon,sunside about +250f .dark side -250f.(figures from google)
Kendo,
Well, the moon rotates, with respect to the sun, once per tropical month, or about every 27 days and 7 hours.
The Earth, of course, rotates faster than that.
Not to mention, one would also have to stipulated no oceans for the Earth to resemble the moon’s surface.
I am fairly certain that the daytime max and nighttime min would be far less extreme on a 24/rotation ball of rock the size of Earth.
But the question was not what would happen on an airless planet, but on a CO2 free one.
It is quite possible that in future the atmosphere will be so short of CO2 that all life will be threatened. It has been on a long downward path for millions of hears. The solution will be to burn sequestered CO2 in limestone formations. Coal will be gone by then. Interesting problem.
The CO2 effect is 1-2% of the total effect of all GHG’s, with water vapour obviously being by far the largest. Water vapour varies from 5000-40,000 ppm and has a much stronger effect, say, 2 times at least, than CO2. If the average is 20,000 and the effect is double, it is like comparing 400 ppm CO2 to 40,000 ppm CO2e, a 1:100 comparison. So 1% is about right as a first order estimate.
You’ll find a fair bit of agreement that the direct effects of CO2 are on the order of about 1 degree C per doubling of CO2. Once you get into the feedbacks though, you are out of luck. You’ll find papers ranging from slightly negative to as much as 4X positive.
+1 (+/-3)… LOL!
If it is +1C per doubling wouldn’t it be -1C per halving?
400 – 200PPM – 1C (Plant life is tenuous)
200 – 100PPM – 1C (Plant life dies…all life dies)
100 – 50PPM – 1C (doesn’t matter at that point?)
Hear tell the effect is logarithmic, so no, not right Bryan.
You describe a linear relationship.
ThomasJK – November 15, 2017 at 6:37 am
Ells bells, ThomasJK, ….. you don’t need any studies, papers, abstracts, memos or expert opinions to be telling you “how much of an effect (degrees C or F)” the 280 ppm pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was contributing to near-surface air temperatures, ….. simply because the answer is “zero” effect, … 0 degrees F and/or 0 degrees C effect. ZERO, nada, zilch, nothing.
“DUH”, I thought everyone knew that all global warming and/or all increases in near-surface average monthly/yearly air temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution was a direct cause of Interglacial Warming, ……. with said “warming” being highjacked by the “warminists”, …..when they took control of the Historical Temperature Record, ….. and is now being falsely credited to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Samuel, wrong, wrong, wrong, again. CO2 and H2O are radiative gases that give the “sky” a temperature. Without them, your infrared temp gun, when aimed upward would read the temperature of outer space, But because “sky” has a temperature, here at ground level we are quite a bit warmer. Any second year engineering or physics student can work out the answer. It’s called the green house effect. Get over it. Your possible contribution against the absurd hype of the warmunists is diminished by your absurd denialist stance.
Doug
How does a trace gas that blocks solar infrared radiation (heat) to the surface, has the least emissivity of all “GHG” molecules (strictly being IR in/IR out), prevent atmospheric convection (surface to space energy transfer), and transfer energy from a low energy state to a high energy state (cold stratophere to hot surface/troposphere)?
CO2 cools, not heats.
Hearsay? Maybe to you.
Doug MacKenzie – November 15, 2017 at 1:06 pm
Doug Mac, I am sure you are correct about those 2nd year e/p students …… which also includes yourself.
And I am sorry to tell you that the answer(s) that all of you “work out” …… will all be wrong …… simply because the public schools and colleges have been teaching CAGW “junk science” to all of you gullible students for like the past 30 years. From pre-school/1st Grade to graduation or drop-out, whichever comes first.
And ps, Doug Mac, you are ……. “quite a bit warmer (or cooler) here at ground level ” ….. simply because of the conduction of the thermal “heat” energy from (or to) the Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2) molecules that come in contact with your person, …….. with very little help, if any, from any “radiating” CO2 molecules. But now the molecules of water (H2O) vapor in the air that come in contact with your person …… are kinda “tricky” …… because, depending on your situation, sometimes that will “cool” you down and sometimes they will “warm” you up.
Cheers
And ps,ps, …. Doug, you should probably educate yourself on the purpose/functioning of HVAC …. @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVAC ….. which will surely help you understand what I was telling you above.
“DUH”, it’s hard to discredit something that most people live with every day.
Thomas,
Go back and read the original papers about the greenhouse effect. Or find a decent textbook that will explain the basic physics. The simple answer is that CO2 along with other non-condensing greenhouse gases warm the earth enough so that water vapour increases which then does the majority of the heating. If you were to suddenly remove CO2 and other similar gases from the atmosphere then in a couple of weeks all of the water vapour would have condensed out (either as rain or snow/ice) and the earth would quickly freeze.
G
Somehow I cannot see ice surviving mid-day equatorial sunshine.
Forgot the /sarc…?
I’m positive Germonio forgot it.
Please explain what “all these other similar gases” are. Does the IPCC know about these?
From the article: “Clearly COP23 and the entire UNFCCC is not about finding solutions to what is, at worst, a minor problem. Their purpose is to exaggerate the problem”
There is no evidence that CO2 is a problem. We shouldn’t allow that it is a problem unless there is evidence.
There is no evidence CO2 is affecting the Earth’s climate in the slightest.
There is no evidence that CO2 is responsible for any of the warming we have experienced. We warmed from 1910 to 1940, when CO2 was much less than today, and then we cooled from 1940 to 1980, and then we warmed again from 1980 to the present, and this warmig was the same magnitude as the warming from 1910 to 1940, with much more CO2 in the atmosphere today than then.
So why should we assume that any of the warming from 1980 to the present is caused by CO2 when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere from 1910 to 1940, yet the warming that occurred was of the same magnitude?
Hear, hear! There is no valid scientific proof that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere aided to a minor extent by the output from our activities has any effect on the world’s climate which is the most complex, non-linear, chaotic systems known to man. It will always change naturally and no way will we ever be able to control or influence it.
Exactly. And you can further extend the logic to paleoclimate records showing NO correlation between CO2 and temperature whatsoever (with significant episodes of REVERSE correlation in that overall record of no correlation) on geologic time scales (hundreds of millions of years) and correlation that runs exactly in REVERSE (i.e., temperature driving CO2 levels, NOT the other way around) on shorter time scales.
IOW, CO2 has NEVER been shown to drive the Earth’s climate in the Earth’s history, so why the $%&@ should we “believe” it does NOW?!
The correlation is not “zero”. It is about 0.53. Remember that 0.50 means there is a 50-50 chance a give temperature change was due to CO2. A 53:47 change that it is due to CO2 is the estimate based on the 20th century.
Keep in mind auto-correlation…
The real question is, are we still recovering from the Little Ice Age (the paleoclimatological data says were are not yet back to the Holocene average) or is it truly an emissions driven effect. Many of the ancient temperature increases occurred just as fast as the current increase, and often to significantly higher end points. The fact that rising sea temperatures outgas CO2 (solubility effect) and CO2 tended in increase AFTER temperatures started rising sells me.
“There is no evidence that CO2 is responsible for any of the warming we have experienced. We warmed from 1910 to 1940, when CO2 was much less than today,..”
I read somewhere that CO2 concentrations rose 50ppm during the 1000 year long Younger Dryas cooling event.
Is there really a strong correlation between rising CO2 concentrations and warming?
CO2 fell during the Younger Dryas.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354.gif
The only strong correlations are of CO2 rising and falling in response to warming and cooling. The effect of CO2 on temperature is far less than the effect of temperature on CO2.
David.
If I was a betting man, I’d say that while the planet warmed, biomass took up the CO2 out of the atmosphere at such a rate that it dropped the CO2 concentration in total.
In the Gas Not Wind chart above, it appears that the Wind and Solar bar graphs do not include the costs of manufacture, which includes rare and expensive metals and materials, most of which cannot be recycled. Also, they neglect the fact that wind and solar have relatively short half-lives and lots of maintenance. The data here is sorely biased to make these RE’s look much better than they really are. Ah, and, is the huge footprint and infrastructures of the RE’s considered? I gather not.
Manufacturing costs fall under “capacity costs.”
Maintenance and fuel fall under “new energy costs.”
It shows that 1 MW of nuclear power is work about $500,000 more than 1 MW/yr of solar and $250,000 more than 1 MW/yr of wind power.
But the US isn’t building nuclear power, is it?
Of course it isn’t, gas is a better solution (money-wise) and there are plenty of gas around in USA.
The chart from Brookings/RCE clearly shows that gas has, by far, the best economics. However, while we have a lot of natural gas, cheap gas won’t last forever.
“However, while we have a lot of natural gas, cheap gas won’t last forever.”
You never know…an article posted here in the past week suggested that natural gas might just be forming continually as the mantle is subducted and melted. It then seeps through cracks and forms subsurface reservoirs. If that’s actually accurate, as long as the plates are moving…we just might have cheap gas.
The fact it isn’t you should be lamenting Griff. Hell you are on the other side of the planet you don’t even have to worry about an accident with it. One of the largest emitters going nuclear should have you cheering but you won’t because you don’t really want to solve the problem.
Nuclear will have a second comming far before Solar and Wind becone truly profitable without subsidization
Except for the millions of cancers and morbidity. One of the great lies of nuclear is that “unless you get cancer and it kills you, then the radiation did not effect you.
Radiation release, is a normal part of the nuclear energy operation, even without the increasing accidents, “small leaks” and all the unreported releases that are covered up. And they always try to cover up.
Radiation compromises the immune system, allowing everything and it’s brother to take a pot shot at you. Sickness, aka morbidity.
It’s not worth it, its not economical, and its not really “baseload” and it is crappy at load following. Nuclear can trip out at a moments notice, automatically, thus requiring 100% rolling reserve at all times.
And did you notice this little thing, the death of the Pacific Ocean? You are blind if you are not paying attention or see all the mass die offs, and now the crashing of fish stocks, and you don’t put 2 and 2 together.
They noticed the same effects in the 1950’s and 1960’s, what else would cause the pretty much insane governments with over 2000 open air nuclear tests to put a stop to open air testing? Because they were killing the oceans and the data was proving it.
Nuclear looks like a “free lunch”, a gimmick, a trick of nature to get something for almost nothing. But the price is extremely high and we have burdened the future with toxic waste that we can’t even handle now, much less 500 years from now.
https://www.marble-institute.com/radon/
I just want to point out that depending upon where you live, you live with radiation around you always to various degrees. You consume it from water and foods. Breathe it from the air. Absorb it constantly from the environment. Some areas that people live in have very high concentrations of radon radiation. The Pacific Ocean is the Ring of Fire that all Volcanoes emit radiation into it. So what happened in Japan just increased the level that was already there and it has been reducing ever since by dilution. I’m not saying it is safe. Just that we need to make them safer.
stock,
Your opinions are…interesting.
Living, as we do, on a planet entirely warmed by electromagnetic radiation from a star, some of which is, yes, ionizing radiation, we are suitably well adapted to absorbing and dealing with radiation…up to a certain level. Coming to any other conclusion is…to borrow one of Dave’s favorite words…problematic. The levels of radiation coming from an operating nuke plant fall well below these limits.
Likewise, the leaks and unreported releases of radiation that you claim occur are unsubstantiated rumors that are in direct conflict with my personal experience. Not saying you’re wrong, just saying it’s counter to my knowledge and experience. As noted above, it is true that some measure of radiation escapes from a nuke plant, but stand back about 50 yards and you’ll never notice it.
Whether or not Fukishima is poisoning the Pacific, I couldn’t say. I’d find it hard to believe, but if the data’s out there then it’s out there. (And what I mean by this is the same thing implied by your post…that the leak of irradiated water from the plant is causing widespread die-off of ocean life across the Pacific.)
As to load following…the entire French fleet is load following. That’s how they were designed. As opposed to the US fleet, which was designed as base load. So, yeah, US plants are crappy at load following. Yep. Of equal relevance to the topic is the observation that stock Mazda Miata’s are horrible as off-roading vehicles…
rip
What about energy density?
You can power all of New York City from a single Nuclear power station with 4 reactors located on the island.
Due to Population Density, you cant do the same with Solar and remain on the island. To Power Manhattan Island with Solar would require covering an area of 1/2 – 2/3 the size of Long Island
higley7
Let’s not go overboard. One could make cheap and reasonable life solar cells using plastics or organic materials. Leave some room for human invention. At the moment, the energy return for energy invested in solar cells is pathetic. It doesn’t have to always be that way.
It takes about 4 months of energy production from a solar cell in order to “build the cell”. And they are guaranteed for 25 years and typically last much longer.
Calling that pathetic, is, well, pathetic.
“Build the cell”
Are you refering to the individual solar cell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell when you say “Solar Cell”
or are you referring to the entire Panel https://shop.naturalwaterscapes.com/britestar-1-solar-aeration/?utm_medium=googleshopping&utm_source=bc&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3O_kvLXB1wIVkMBkCh087wg5EAYYByABEgLDePD_BwE ?
Solar panels, like the one pictured in the second link (and below)
require 120 individual cells and as such would require 480 months worth of energy to build the panel.
to replace my energy needs with solar would require 30 such panels with 3600 cells and 14400 equivalent months of energy. given 12 months in a year, that is an equivalent of 1200 years worth of energy production to fulfill my panel needs
Stock: “It takes about 4 months of energy production from a solar cell in order to “build the cell”. ”
There are peer reviewed papers in the literature claiming only a 0.83 ERoEI for photovoltaics [Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk 2016] In simple language, they NEVER break even. Even the most optimistic (biased?) estimates I’ve seen put energy break even at several years. Your (unsubstantiated) claim of 4 months is beyond pathetic, it’s absurd propaganda.
Bryan A: Check your math. That type of middle school mistake makes us all look bad.
Bill Murphy, please re-read the Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert J. Hopkirk paper. Pay close attention to the words “in regions of moderate insolation” in the abstract. Your error is applying the results of a narrow application to the global use of solar PV.
..
Total FAIL.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
“Moderate” is anything but a “narrow application.”
If EROEI is <1 in areas of moderate insolation, it would be substantially more <1 in areas of less than moderate insolation… Leaving us with what we already know – Solar PV works fairly well in deserts.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
Bill…Mistake??
My figures are good both in my head and on a calculator.
Where am I in error?
4 months worth of energy per cell times 120 cells per panel IS 480 months worth of energy per panel.
480 months worth of energy per panel times 30 panels IS 14400 months worth of energy.
14400 months worth of energy divided by 12 months per year IS 1200 years worth of energy months to produce the 30 panels of 120 cells each required to power my house
C. Paul Pierett: “Total FAIL.”
“in regions of moderate insolation” includes most of Europe and much of North America and much of Asia and as David pointed out above, that is hardly a “narrow application”. Also it seems highly unlikely that even the most ideal site would provide the factor of 6 improvement in ERoEI needed to achieve the sustainability level of 5 in the paper David quoted above.
In any case my post was in response to Stock claiming energy payback of 4 months, an ERoEI of several hundred. That’s not even in the same order of magnitude as reality. If you consider that a total fail then it seems we have different opinions about reality.
Bryan A: “4 months worth of energy per cell times 120 cells per panel IS 480 months worth of energy per panel.”
It’s 480 months of energy from one cell to make the panel but there are 120 cells in the panel so the whole panel’s energy is 120 times one cell so it’s still 4 months to make the panel.
Anyway, as David and I pointed out above the 4 month number from stock is pure fantasy without significant improvement in either the performance or energy cost of manufacture and installation of photovoltaics. Significant meaning an order of magnitude or more. Unlikely, but they may someday reach the ERoEI of 5 needed to make them sustainable.
But it is still 1200 years worth of equivalent months energy
Greenpeace is of course at the U.N. COP23 climate conference in Bonn. The website below reports that the organization also has its Rainbow Warrior “sailboat” at the conference with a “Planet Earth First” sign between the masts. However, as the link below states, the boat actually runs of low sulfur diesel fuel.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/30810/.
http://www.thecommentator.com/ckeditor_assets/pictures/252/content_bp1-560×314.jpg.
How does one spell that world that I’m thinking of here? Oh yes, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
The second link is a photo of the Rainbow Warrior being refueled with diesel from BP Amoco. Snicker snicker.
Wasn’t it the Rainbow Worrier that leaked fuel all over the Great Barrier Reef?
That’s why DSGE took it out… 😎
The whole operation runs on ignorance and cynicism. But it’s the Socialist brand so it’s o.k.
OOps….spell that word, not world.
Its not a ‘sail boat’, its a ‘sign boat’.
Sailboat have auxiliary engines, who knew?
I happen to think that GREENPEACE uses boats for criminal and non-peaceful purposes. Suggesting they are hypocrites is being too nice.
Many years ago I tried to get my company to buy me a new main sail with the company reason to sailogo on it. The reason of course is that sail are expensive.
The reason to sail is to get out and enjoy being on the water and peace and quiet.
I happen to be in favor of nuclear weapons. On a personal level, it ended WWII. Since my father was actively participating, he did not die invading Japan and later I was born. I also like the concept of leaders who start wars being among the first to get nuked.
I also like nuclear power based on its merits. Like many technologies, war accelerated development of nuclear reactors. Nuclear medicine was rapidly accepted.
Nuclear power has also been rapidly too. Within 20 years of the first commercial reactors, I was participating in a building boom.
There is a tiny segment of society that is vocal about everything.
The US could be doing better, mostly by undoing Jimmy Carter era restrictions on nuclear energy. Both the once-through fuel cycle and the byzantine approval process must go.
Really! The US is the world leader when it comes to making electricity using fission.
At the current time, it is not economical to extract fissionable material from spent fuel.
I had to look up the definition of ‘byzantine’.
So Tom which application for a COL, power uprate, extension of 20 years has been rejected?
I worked in China. The best I can tell, the level of detail is the same. Word for word, and in English. Yes, I have worked on both. More detail is required in Finland. Canada is downright obstructive.
So why is the leader in keeping old plants running? Because we were the leader in building new reactors. Why is China building more commercial nukes that anyone else at the moment? They were the world leader in slave labor coal for 50 years and dirty power plants.
When the world price of coal includes protecting workers and the environment, China figured out they needed to build reactors.
I’m a bit puzzled by the Bangladeshis saying they’d like technology to improve their coal plants, as the coal plants they are building are of the advanced supercritical design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahiwal_Coal_Power_Project
However since they have to import coal for these, I predict that a lot of their planned coal plant won’t get built…
You don’t predict anything you actually trust yourself, unless you put some stake in it (money, or what ever is relevant for you). Do you?
if you were Griff and every prediction you ever made was so wildly wrong would you put your money on your own predictions? Well here’s hoping Griff doesn’t put his money down on his own predictions the world has enough people collecting subsidies it does need another.
It’s pretty basic Griff even a green econut like you should be able to understand it. They have the 10th highest population density in the world they don’t have the land mass to give over to renewables. They can’t generate enough electricity any other way, unless you are going to give them nuclear power.
Your start green friend nation, China is financing all this expansion because it wants the political leverage and that is far more important than green econut influence.
That would still be true, even if wind and solar actually worked.
“The impetus for nuclear power in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.”
Baghouses and scrubbers are robust technologies and a lot cheaper than nukes.
But it is a good excuse and keeps people looking the other way. China has to import coal.
Correct, China did not start aggressively building nuke plants until they had to start importing coal in 2005.
The U.S. delegation should have gotten down on its knee’s and admitted its sins (promoting coal, NG and nuclear instead of bird blenders and cookers). It then would have received absolution from the climate high priests and approbation from all their gas bag minions, i.e. “hippies”. Lucky for us in the west, the U.S. stuck to its guns. Thank you President Trump. I, as a Canadian, wish my own current PM wasn’t such a climate (among other things) dick-weed.
knees not knee’s
Oh, no, all insufficient to receive absolution. The only thing that would have b[r]ought redemption in the eyes of the attendees would have been money. In small unmarked bills, if necessary, but money. Several trillion dollars worth.
I hear ya on Trudeau, man. Never met a camera he didn’t make love to. Politics is now on the level of basic cable entertainment so naturally we have a drama teacher for PM. Knocking loudly on Hell’s door.
US delegation gutty stuff is the first Daniel-into-lion’s-den event since Political Correctness usurped the domain of the intellect. Bravo!
We have allowed and funded the free reign of the ugliest anti-human, anti-prosperity, anti-education, anti-freedom forces to flourish for half a century and straightening this out is going to take such in-your-face events daily along with tightening the tourniquet on the cash umbilical until it can be severed.
Trump is an unlikely hero who will go down in history for saving the West and mankind from the real existential threat to the world. Self-loathing neurotics, who want to atone for inflicting on the world the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, individual freedom and democracy and the free enterprise engine of economic development and prosperity are the purveyors of the real threats to wellbeing And the real environment. It’s the Deplorables job to fix this and spare us from what the “Good Guys” have in store for us.
Never saw it worded more eloquently!
Excellent post, Gary Pearse.
Well put, Gary. I hope you are right that Trump can undo 50 years of stupidity before he’s gone. I probably would have voted Libertarian but at least Hillary didn’t get in. As an outside ( Canadian) observer, I think she should be in jail. The West is in decline. If we don’t turn it around soon it will be too late.
It is not wrong to assume that there will be advances in new power generation methods relying on nuclear transmutations. In other words, we do not need to plan the future of humanity looking only at technologies what we already have.
It is clear from the historical records that there is no ‘global warming’ crisis at hand. We will, in this century, have a peak energy crisis even if the population peaks in 2050.
There is the obvious fact that coal is a limited resource and it should be used wisely and carefully, applying the best techniques for its clean and efficient use. Full stop.
There are sufficient examples of 1970’s nuclear technology showing it is outdated and not nearly safe enough in the hands of hide-bound or obstinate or intoxicated operators, whether intoxicated with power or drugs of choice. Those generically opposing ‘nuclear power’ are as foolish as those testing at Chernobyl with the lights turned off.
The protesters, at root, consider that all the things that will ever be invented have been, and they understand the future of humanity through that clouded, coloured lens. It is similar to the protesters who chopped up the Spinning Jenny of William Arkwright. They could not imagine a vastly better future for production of goods and services. Their vision of the future is like some Star Trek planet full of Amish farmers: poor but happy.
The energy field has too many misconceptions and underestimations in it – thoughts planted in fertile fields of ignorance and inexperience where they grow into mutant monsters. A modern society needs huge amounts of energy. It will not come from windmills, that’s for sure. It might come from solar cells. It is far more likely to come from compact generators using new methods of elemental transmutation. The fact that we don’t have a perfect and simple answer now in no way impedes a future society where resources are more sensibly applied to inventing even better futures.
I am glad they are protesting in Bonn, that is a good use of their energy. It might help them to learn more about the field of energy generation and application, perhaps even to the point of being able to assess what constitutes a worthwhile energy investment for a worthwhile return. Obviously that simple principle has not yet filtered down to the street. “Renewables”, save for hydro power, are completely dependent on fossil fuels for their existence. If that is the only fact of life they learn in Bonn, it is progress, in my book.
The Bonn protesters aren’t protesting, they’ve long since stopped protesting. What they are doing is shutting down debate, discussion, talks, or any possible sign of a different view.
Nor are they there to learn anything. They are done learning, they have closed their minds.
What they are doing there is a form of virtue masturbation and rage prostitution. Plus, they are also making sure they are lined up at the trough for the blood money they think is coming their way.
You might add that they are being paid – some of them – to ‘protest’ or there is no lolly. Being a professional protester doesn’t mean that at some point they are not learning what a crock they are supporting. It was noticed in the BC anti-pipeline protests that the same rent-a-mob was turning up at each ‘event’. If they have 1 paid protester for each 7 suckers, they can make a go of it. Throw in a burger and a couple of tokes and you have a malleable mob.
I agree with their comment that it is stupid for the US group to talk about reducing CO2 emissions with one breath and coal expansion with the next. It would be far better to talk about inventing the future energy supply of the nation.
“It would be far better to talk about inventing the future energy supply of the nation.”
Cannot concur with this Crispin. There is never any guarantee that such invention is even possible. The discussion should be about what is the best way to proceed with what you have now and I would include in that things which have passed proof-of-concept but not yet been fully commercialised. In the background invest in research efforts. Real ones. Based on science not politics. But you cannot ever assume the research will be successful.
Amish farmers in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, are not poor.
Top down planning “the future of humanity” is an example of hubris. No central planner will ever know as much as would be needed to be successful. Worse, no central planner knows as much as they think they do. Governments should limit themselves to creating the conditions for bottom up creativity, without subsidies or attempts to pick winners and losers. While I agree with much of what you wrote, that first paragraph put me off…
Crispin in Waterloo
November 15, 2017 at 8:01 am: Amish being tough, hard-working, productive and successful folk, hardly warrant being lumped in with “progressives”. Who are just the opposite.
But yes, to write off future inventiveness is just plain stupid and are we surprised?
Clean coal is an oxymoron and CCS does not work. Period. Full stop. End of story. US presence in Bonn was a pathetic joke.
CCS does work when it’s done for the right reason.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33552
The captured CO2 from Petra Nova is pipelined to West Ranch oil field…
https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/doe-supported-petra-nova-captures-more-1-million-tons-co2
3,700 bbl/day of increased oil production at $50/bbl is worth $67.5 million per year. They expect to ultimately bring production up to 15,000 bbl/day and recover about 60 million barrels of oil that would otherwise have been left in the ground.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/18/clean-coal-carbon-capture-and-enhanced-oil-recovery/
At $50/bbl, 60 million barrels is worth $3 billion. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be about $1 billion, (with the DOE (AKA taxpayers) chipping in $190 million). Better than 3:1 simple ROIC, not bad for a pilot project. NRG expects to be able to bring the cost down in the future.
Currently, about 300,000 bbl/d of US oil production is due to CO2 EOR…
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17331
DOE estimates that CO2 EOR could recover about 85 billion barrels of oil from existing U.S. oil fields:
https://www.netl.doe.gov/file%20library/research/oil-gas/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf
Couldn’t they just use air instead of CO2?
They can use nitrogen. In some cases, nitrogen is cheaper than CO2.
ICISIL,
Read the Wiki here why CO2 is particularly effective. But most eventually returns to the surface. So the CCS is really CCP (carbon capture propaganda).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery
The CO2 is generally re-injected.
Nitrogen would be safer than CO2. If it escapes, it won’t poison people like high concentrations of CO2, since air is composed mostly of nitrogen.
The CO2, once injected into the reservoir can’t “escape” in sufficient volume to be hazardous. The only danger is in the event of a blowout of an injection well. Blowouts are rare and in the 45-yr history of CO2 injection EOR, there have been no fatalities…
http://neori.org/resources-on-co2-eor/safety/
Re-injected requiring another addition of (fossil fuel) energy expenditure.
CO2 re-use, from a strictly engineering stand-point, is a more appropriate term.
But Sequestration sounds nicer to the watermelons, and gets some kind of tax credit I believe.
The CO2 is sequestered…
http://neori.org/resources-on-co2-eor/safety/
Since 1972, over 175 million metric tons of CO2 have been injected into the SACROC reservoir; there has never been any evidence of leakage.
When the injection began, total recovery was less than 20% of the original oil in place (SACROC was discovered in 1948). The CO2 EOR has led to nearly a 50% recovery.
http://www.mktechsolutions.com/CO2%20EOR_Sacroc%20Oil%20Production.jpg
The field is currently producing almost 30,000 bbl of oil and 21,000 bbl of NGL per day.
https://www.kindermorgan.com/pages/business/co2/eor/sacroc.aspx
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/API-72-D001
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/sacroc.php
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/docs/SACROC%20Final%20Report_v1.pdf
http://www.mktechsolutions.com/CO2%20EOR.html
CO2 apparently reduces oil viscosity better than other gases.
It’s also a matter of availability. There are large natural CO2 sources, like Jackson Dome in Mississippi.
Nitrogen is only suited for light oils at high pressure.
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/n/nitrogen_injection.aspx
Generally deep reservoirs.
Dave,
I’m skeptic where absolutes in any thing man-made are invoked.
And here I’ll quote Nassim Taleb.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
CO2 gets back to surface and then additional fossil fuel is used to push it back down for more EOR. Repeat.
SACROC has been injected with CO2 since 1972. There is an extensive network of monitoring wells in strata above the field. There has never been a trace of CO2 leakage.
The same rocks that sealed the oil in the Pennsylvanian/Permian Canyon reef formation for 100’s of millions of years are now sealing the CO2 in the Canyon formation.
Everything that happens in Bonn is a joke. A great example of the “Art of junket” also known as the path to achieving nothing but get a good meal along the way. They could have had a video conference and saved millions of dollars and a heck of a lot of emissions.
But then we wouldn’t have all these nice pictures of the activists virtue signalling.
“heck of a lot of emissions”
No doubt. I bet hooker GDP goes way up during those conferences.
Fascinating how Denys here declares that a technology that has been in use for 40 years doesn’t work.
I guess for such as him, ideology once again trumps facts.
Denys,
You seem to like truths.
– Clean is of course a subjective term. Not a scientific term. And badly abused by all parties.
– Sequestration uses more fossil fuel for negligible return.
– So CCS is really either CCR ( and re-use) or CCP (and propaganda) depending on one’s value set.
Speaking of unavoidable truths:
– Renewable energy is not reliable (except hydro, which is mostly built out).
– Renewable energy replaces not one KWh of necessary grid supply to meet demand.
– When the entire life cycle cost of a single wind turbine is made, (production, transportation, installation, maintenance, and replacement), the CO2 reduction compared to a similar modern natural gas source completely disappears and in fact may be negative (a negative CO2 reduction, which means turbines result in higher CO2 for the carbon-free electricity it generated over its usable life).
– Climate models for 25 years have over-estimated actual warming by about 2-3 fold. Strongly implies climate is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as the modelers suggest.
– All CMIP climate models use highly subjective parameters tuning and tweaking. In various peer reviewed publications, the modellers themselves have referred to tuning as “an art”, similar to a conductor of an orchestra to get the symphony to Sound just right,” and tuning until all the parameter “feel just right.” The climate science community has quietly accepted this pseudoscience and largely not talked about it openly until forced to in the last few years as more non-climate scientists have become aware of this charade masquerading as science.
– Without the highly subjective model outputs, the Climate Change paradigm collapses.
– The Paris Agreement INDCs, if fully followed, make no discernible GMST difference when error bands in IPCC’s own projections are included.
Period. Full stop. End of story.
Everyone’s presence in Bonn was a pathetic joke.
“……and carbon capture are critical to reducing CO2 emissions,…” BS. We have a away to capture CO2 now. We don’t need a new system where CO2 is captured from a coal fired electric plant, piped under ground, used in the fracking for natural gas or oil. We, as consumers, get nothing from it but higher electric and/or oil price. It would be better to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and hand out “free” fire extinguishers
How would recovering more oil from existing oil fields lead to higher oil prices?
Talking Heads at Bonn.
Same as It ever was.
Hey! maybe we sceptics ought to get some banners, grubby clothes, beards, badges and rented native Americans, and go and protest at the lies being perpetrated about climate change by alarmist organisation’s/quango’s/NGO’s/charities/sponging nations etc.
We can chant and sing, wave our fists in the air, and heckle speakers, just like the good guys do. They’re bound to welcome us with open arms as a valuable example of democracy in action, and the value of free speech.
We are after all, a minority group. The organisers couldn’t possibly object to that as they worship minority groups and strive to satisfy them before they satisfy the democratic majority, who are dim enough to believe that using the power of their democratic right to vote on big decisions that affect us all, is the right thing to do.
Let’s just dispense with the silly sciency stuff everyone pores over on WUWT and do it the easy way, shout, scream, listen to no one who disagrees with us, stick our fingers in our ears and chant LaLaLa………loudly, and claim it a legitimate socio-political, scientific stance to adopt.
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
I really wish these morons would grow up.
Most of us have “day jobs”… LOL!
David
Inherent in that statement is the proposition that the Bonn protesters have nothing better to do with their time.
Entirely correct I suspect.
They are paid to be there and “protest.” Quite a racket actually.
Soros, Rockefellers, Steyer money at work.
Wow. What a moron. How does that retard keep getting elected?
I guess one would have to look at who is voting for “that retard”.
Just a thought.
The same people who just reelected Comrade Deblazio to a second term as Commissar of New York City.
Bloomberg has been out of office for four years, and it was New York City, anyway. I think comparing him to morons libels stupid people–he is a fanatic, a different category of yahoo.
How does that retard keep getting elected?
Well, by definition half of the population is below average intelligence, and you only need 51% of the votes to be elected. So, … !
Nope. That’s not the definition of ‘average’ if you use the typical meaning, ie ‘mean’.
Maybe not the best source, but Wikipedia says IQ are designed for median (not mean) of 100. Most other sites say mean=median=mode for intelligence, so I think Richmond nailed it.
Yeah but, on average, ‘average’ is is used to mean ‘mean’.
I’ve never seen the use of the word ‘average’ in normal usage to mean ‘median’.
Saying that half of all people gave an IQ below 100 is also not accurate, since some have exactly 100.
Maths is just not as simple as it seems!
Hypocrisy is rife in Bonn
https://youtu.be/hW2B_GT3b1E
People with confidence in the factuality of their opinions don’t need to shout down those with opposing views. It’s people with fragile logic and doubt in their views that need to keep opposing opinions from being voiced. That’s the coward’s way of making sure there’s no debate, because debate might possibly debunk a faulty point of view.
If one really believes that the burning of fossil fuels is bad then one should stop making use of goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. After all it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Apparently the protesters are still making use of goods and services provided for by fossil fuels and are still paying out money that ends up in the hands of the fossil fuel companies. All people that make use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels should be banned from any future climate meetings because it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business.
If they’re so against fossil fuels, how did they get to Bonn, via Omaha? 🙂
ROTFLMAO!!!!
And then there’s Jerry Brown saying that it will take “brain washing” :
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-vatican-conference-california-governor-says-brainwashing-needed-on-clima
The best way to brain wash me on the need to redistribute the world’s resources is to send me to Cancun at other’s expense. What better way is there to convince me of the benefits of wealth redistribution?
“Except for the millions of cancers and morbidity. One of the great lies of nuclear is that “unless you get cancer and it kills you, then the radiation did not effect you.”
First you have to be exposed. It is very easy to measure even low exposure to radiation. Radiation protection is easy too. Time, distance, and shielding.
“Whether or not Fukishima is poisoning the Pacific, I couldn’t say. ”
I can! The ocean is big, reactor cores are small. Even though there was core damage most of the reactor core is still inside the containment building.
“As to load following…the entire French fleet is load following. That’s how they were designed. As opposed to the US fleet, which was designed as base load.”
The design is the same. It is a matter of reactor physics. US reactors can load follow but do not because we have lots of coal and France does not.
“The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
They could negotiate over a video conference link, instead of emitting all that CO2 by traveling to Cancun. But then, whats the fun of redistributing other people’s wealth on paper? It’s much more satisfying to do it in person, as long as it’s not coming out of your own pocket. And why not start the redistribution with Cancun?
No CO2, no photosynthesis, no oxygen, no life on Earth. The current rate is low (400 ppm) because, over the last 600 million years, the average was 2000 ppm. Wanting to reduce our emissions (which are worth only 5% of total emissions) is a nonsense that confirms that the ideology of warming is located in an irrational and surreal space-time.
+100
There is one predictable crisis for those refusing to salute.
Indeed, Jaakko! All
treacherousdeplorablecapitalistdenialist lackeys who refuse to give the gloriouscommunistPeople’s salute at the appointed moment are guilty of wrong thinking and will be either consigned togulagsthe University of East Anglia for climate re-education orshotimprisoned for crimes against humanity.Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
-– Ottmar Edenhofer (IPCC), November 2010