Virtually everything in our society is made from fossil fuels.
Published March 8, 2023 at CFACT https://www.cfact.org/2023/03/08/american-suppression-of-fossil-fuels-courts-a-national-security-disaster/
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
The capacity of a modern economy to produce food and products for its citizens, and weapons and fuels for its military to project power, are the undeniable twin pillars of global power. Both depend on reasonably priced and readily available products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. In other words, American literally runs and fights on products from fossil fuels.
The renewables of wind and solar only generate occasional electricity, but manufacture nothing for society.
Take for example the medical industry that did not exist just a few hundred years ago, that is now maintaining the health and well-being of the 8 billion now on this planet. Today, as an exercise in energy literacy, try to identify something, anything, in your doctor’s office, or the hospital, or the pharmacy, which was not made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
President Biden has been campaigning for years for the elimination of fossil fuels. But ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind, would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths. Shortages of fossil fuel products would necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800’s, and could be the greatest threat to the planet’s eight billion residents.
The ruling class in wealthy countries are not cognizant that the planet populated from 1 to 8 billion in less than two hundred years, and that population explosion began right after the discovery of oil. That growth in the population was not just based on crude oil by itself, as crude oil is useless until it can be manufactured into something useable. Today, through human ingenuity, we have more than 6,000 products currently benefiting society and fuels for the 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.
Sadly, the U.S. is killing fossil fuel transport pipelines, curtailing permitting of refineries and natural gas export facilities, suppressing oil and gas leasing and drilling and, worst of all, stifling longer-term investment in the industry. Driven by an all-encompassing determination to limit CO2 emissions, Europe, and now America, have declared war on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Russia and China burn oil, gas and coal and emit greenhouse gases at levels that dwarf the West’s.
- QUESTION: Today, how can the ruling class in the few wealthy countries of Germany, Australia, UK, Canada, and America, believe that all the infrastructures and products manufactured from crude oil, such as medical, electronics, communications, and the many transportation infrastructures such as airlines, merchant ships, automobiles, trucks, military, and the space programs, are not needed by future generations?
Ridding the world of fossil fuels would result in a reduction in each of the following, as they all exist because of the products manufactured from crude oil, that cannot be manufactured by either wind or solar.
The world leaders are experiencing a “dangerous delusion” of a global transition to “just electricity” that eliminates the use of the fossil fuels that made society achieve so much in a few centuries. From the proverb “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” tells us that:
- you can’t rid the world of fossil fuels and
- continue to enjoy the products and fuels manufactured from fossil fuels.
National economies and nations’ militaries still run on fossil fuels. There is no substitute for fossil fuel dominance, even on a longer-term horizon. To believe and act otherwise is suicidal. It’s the real “existential threat.”
You cannot run households, businesses, hospitals, and the military on occasional electricity!
By pursuing climate-driven elimination and suppression of fossil fuels, the United States and its Western allies are heading for national security/defense, global/geostrategic disasters. Economies and militaries run on fossil fuels and, more than any other nation, America’s military would be emasculated without fossil fuels. The climate change imperative gripping the West is self-imposed civilizational suicide.
Ronald Stein, P.E.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
https://expertfile.com/experts/ronald.stein
Please sign up here for more Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein
But think of The Simple Life! Other than most people dying, relying on renewables is simple! It is heteropatriarchal wrongthink to actually have anything! Just consider the whatness of the wherefore as you starve in the dark!
Nick S below is about to get silly. Nick, what cannot happen will not happen.
From EM Smith…
“To build a machine to replace a combustion turbine … you need between 1000 and 2000 percent more minerals to deliver the same unit of power. And you need somewhere on the order of 400% more minerals and metals to deliver the same vehicle… If you adjust for energy delivered (due to wind not blowing all the time…and sunset -E.M.S.) the actual requirement to deliver the same unit of energy to society is a 2000 to 7000 percent increase… (so 20 to 70 times as much metals and minerals. -E.M.S.)”
So the electricity generator (wind and or solar plus the delivery materials), requires one to two magnitudes more resources, and the replacement, wind and solar, only produces about 25 to 30 percent of “rated capacity” so you need at least 3 times the “rated capacity.”
And really more than that, as when the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind does not blow, you MUST have conventional ramp up, and, now that, by law, you have given priority to wind and solar, the efficiency of combustion generation is greatly reduced.
(Nick, you yahoo, you told the energy store that was operating 24/7 at 92 percent of capacity, to instead operate 1/4 of the time, and you will not tell them more than a few days in advance when they will operate. You have increased their operational costs and fairly dramatically shortened the material life of their generating capacity, as ramping up and down production is labor intensive, and very hard on the generating plant machines.)
Having falsely and dramatically increased conventional power generation costs, you can then falsely do a more favorable $ comparison to renewables. Don’t mention the artificially increased cost of fossil fuel generation, the at best 30 percent of name plate renewable production, and the consistent inability to guarantee dispatch, and, if you control the message, and do the math by “name plate” capacity instead of actual, you can convince a majority of uneducated that wind and solar cost the same or less than conventional fossil fuels. And let’s not even get into the relatively short life time of wind and solar generating infrastructure, (All solar and wind generation which is now existent, must be replaced in 25 to 30 years tops.)
Additionally the cost of mining these materials, and the machines and energy required, not that it will happen, would go up exponentially as the density of the desired minerals of the mines decreased with extraction. Net zero is absurd,and Nick, you had some limited credibility as a CAGW proponent, yet now pretending Net Zero is doable is untenable to the point of you losing all credibility.
This gets really silly. The aim is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Oil and coal will still exist, and there will be no problem making organic chemicals from them.
Not even wrong, Nick. The petrochemical feed stocks required to make those organic chemicals are by-products of refining the oil into fuels. If you don’t have a need for the fossil fuels, then there won’t be any refining, and, therefore, no petrochemical feed stocks. Or, the refineries are set up to make the petrochemical feed stocks, and create an awful lot of fuels as by-products. In the latter case, the petrochemical feed stocks will be a lot more expensive than they are now, and someone will have to figure out what to do with all the fuels.
Any processing that is done in the oil refinery can be done as a separate process. Pharmaceuticals etc are high value products; the cost of the feedstock is a small fraction of the final worth. Anyway, the worst outcome is that these items will cost a little more; they won’t become unavailable.
When did you become an economist able to predict what costs will be?
You were just told that oil and gas are the feedstocks for all kinds of chemicals used in manufacturing all kinds of products. Yet you support killing all drilling and pipelines that can carry the oil needed to start the process.
If oil companies can even get the oil, just what will they have to charge in order to make a profit on the non-fuel portion of the oil? That is where your lack of economic sophistication shows itself!
Just “a little more” my foot! The money received from the fuel portion of the oil also pays for the searching, drilling, and transporting costs of obtaining oil. It pays a large part of costs for refining the oil into fuel and other chemicals. Those costs don’t go away dude! Those non-fuel products are probably going to triple or more just to pay the overhead fuel used to cover.
No need to drill – we can just wander down into the swamp and do a ‘Jed Clampett’ whenever we need a few gallons to make non-fuel products.
probably my favorite TV show of all time
Yes, a very funny show.
I recall when Jethro came into the mansion and announced he saw out back a CEE-ment pond, I laughed for an hour.
You reminded me of an important distinction – CE-ment is the stuff you build sidewalks with and CEE-ment is the stuff Halliburton pumps down oil wells.
You will not need pipelines to carry the hydrocarbons needed to make pharmaceuticals. Tankers will do fine. Even battery powered tankers.
Synthesis of organic chemicals is an elaborate and expensive process. The preliminary rearrangement of hydrocarbons, which is what the refining process contributes, will be the least of their concerns.
YOUR battery is running down, Nick, and you need a recharge, or a lobotomy.
The world has about 600 oil refineries that will gradually become worthless as gasoline and diesel fuel use is significantly reduced.
Will oil companies build NEW refineries dedicated only to producing feedstocks? Will environmentalists block such new facilities?
New refineries are possible but not very likely to be an acceptable investment with a good return on capital. They would compete with the existing oil refineries which will need all the sales they can get as gasoline use declines.
Here are some thoughts on the refinery “transition” … that will not happen:
Crude oil to chemicals: How refineries can adapt | McKinsey
Thanks for the link – it does set out how they can make the transition – from McKinsey in Houston. But Mr Greene thinks differently.
There is no reason why existing refineries could not adapt to producing mainly byproduct output.
Existing Refineries are NOT flexible to change the mix of products they produce by more than +/- 5 percentage points.
I posted a link to show that a transition is possible … but those risky investments will NOT be made voluntarily by any refiners simply because they would reduce the profitability of existing oil refineries.
Not to mention the barriers to getting a new refinery built, even if funding is found.
“There is no reason why existing refineries could not adapt to producing mainly byproduct output.”
There’s no reason why they should. CO2 is not a problem (you could prove me wrong, but you won’t, because you can’t) and does not need to be reduced.
“ Even battery powered tankers.”
You really do live in a fule’s demented la-la-land, don’t you !
Yes, and it doesn’t seem that long ago when Nick actually made sense! But, I could be wrong.
but without a substantial fossil fuel industry, we’ll all be so poor that we won’t be able to afford the pharmaceuticals and other organic chemicals from what’s left of a greatly diminished fossil fuel industry- even if the price on those products doesn’t go up dramatically
East Palestine, Ohio
Sillier and sillier.
Because of time spent recharging, three times the current tanker numbers will be required to almost meet current capabilities.
It’s also noted that tests have failed to make an industrial EV truck capable of making any lengthy run.
Restricting trucking to urban type errands is an industrial size failure.
Is your Brain Screwed on backwards”?
“About 45 percent of a typical barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. An additional 29 percent is refined to diesel fuel. The remaining oil is used to make plastics and other products (see image Products made from a barrel of crude oil, 2016).:
Without the profits from the 75 percent the 25 percent used for everything from plastic bottles to clothing would cost three times as much. You then need to find a way to remove that 25% more efficiently and something to do with the 75% that you want to throw away. What do you do with it? Pump it back into the ground?
As a proponent of Net Zero you then need to calculate the cost of all of today’s facilities, industries, Server farms, hospitals, smelting plants, etc. that have fossil fuel powered emergency generator, many required by government regulation to hay a week or more reserve of fuel to meet those regulations with a battery. Don’t forget Wind turbines as they cannot remove ice or start if they do not have a source of power. PERIOD.
JIM GORMAN et all
My above post was aimed at Nick Stokes.
I must have clicked in the wrong place.
And that separate processing has already been demonstrated, to at least TRL 7, and the facilities to do that separate processing already exist?
We are talking about the future here. But the chemical industry does far more complex (and dangerous) things than the production of ethylene.
“We are talking about the future here”
No, you are talking about pure anti-science fantasy !
Even making Ethylene is highly dependent on RELIABLE, Uninterrupted power. An unexpected power outage can cause considerable damage,
Forgot to mention that the Electric Utility I retired from, a nuclear plant that made near Net ZERO electricity and provided 100% of the power to two Ethylene plants that bordered the NPP was forced into shutting down due to Wind Turbines getting priority in purchasing. They are now fed power from Coal and NG Plants. Meanwhile, my power, 30% from Wind turbines, gives me several momentary to day long outages several times a week.
Luckly, I know how to reset all the wireless devices on my Security/Fire alarm system and do not need to call in the security company to reset them. I assume you enjoy paying $100 a week/month to call the service man.
Silly utterly fails to identify your complete ignorance in these processes and sub-processes.
Did you ever try to sail a battleship or a flattop, here maybe in addition with solar panels ?
That’s also part of the article you seem to refuse….
The stated target is Net Zero. That envisages that use of FF where irreplaceable will continue, and be balanced by sequestration such as CCS. If CCS etc prove inadequate, we will fall short of the target. Planes will still fly.
Probably more naval ships will be nuclear-powered. The US Navy already has 11 nuclear aircraft carriers.
So, those groups & individuals that really really really need to use gasoline & diesel powered vehicles will still be allowed … in your mind they will be given a waiver?
I think flying is the key issue, and FF will be used if there is no replacement.
Jet fuel, aka kerosene, is a fairly small cut from the barrel. Are you suggesting that we go back to the good ol’ days and dump the rest of the barrel into a local river?
No. We’re quite sophisticated nowadays with cat cracking and reformation.
We must be quite sophisticated nowadays if cat crackers and reformers can be configured to produce only jet…
Hardly any organic reaction produces just the product you want. Not 100% yield. You have to separate the bit you want, and process the rest again.
I don’t think you know very much about refinery units. FCCs and CCRs produce paltry amounts of jet relative to other products and feedstocks. Again, are you suggesting that the bulk of the output from these units should be dumped into a nearby river?
OK, then I’ll refer you to McKinsey’s investigation, via Richard Greene’s link:
Crude oil to chemicals: How refineries can adapt | McKinsey
Why would I want to know what a bunch of newly-minted MBAs working for a woke consultancy think about refining?
Our cat Loves crackers.
And so we come fully around the circle of reason — catalytic cracking and steam reformation are fueled by coal, oil, and natural gas, not wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear.
We must burn it to refine it. Still champion of boring, tail-chasing, nonsense.
Both cracking and reformation need heat and pressure. That does not have to come from combustion.
Nonsense, but on par.
Give us an example. Where does it come from?
“Both cracking and reformation need uninterruptable heat and pressure.
That applies to all current uses including for motor transport regardless of so-called ‘NetZero’.
“FF will be used if there is no replacement
NONE CURRENTLY EXIST.
So leave your fantasy-land comment in the anti-science bin where they belong.
Keeping those nuclear Naval vessels maintained and supplied requires -vast- amounts of energy. We use natural gas powered generators at the shipyards, and the supply vessels use fuel oil.
Nuclear powered Naval vessels are seriously expensive. We can barely afford the existing ones.
“Nuclear powered Naval vessels are seriously expensive” Kinda’ like Ukraine.
So tell us Nick, your equation for Net Zero. Here in Australia we are a carbon sink, but that doesn’t stop some scientists from telling the government we need to get to “Net Zero”. It must be somewhere in the definition. 😉
Net Zero means net zero addition of new (fossil) carbon to the air.
Which is an utterly stupid thing to do.
The planet would function far better with 700-1000ppm of atmospheric CO2.
Its also impossible while fossil fuels are being used.
China knows that, and places like US, Germany, and little Australia destroying their economies for the sake a “virtue-seeking” anti-science goal, is something only a complete moron could support !
But a carbon sink adds no net CO2 to the air.
Please, list here the types of military ordnance that are not made from petroleum, coal, or natural gas AND do not use any of them in depoyment, manufacture and storage, AND also do not emit CO2 (or any really hazardous materials) when detonated.
The best source of electrical power for your definition is Nuclear Power Plants. An Honest examination of the economics proves this.
FACT: More people have died from manufacture, maintenance, and use of Wind Turbines than all nuclear power plant accidents combined – including workplace accidents.
If you seriously want Net Zero, then focus on increasing the use of nuclear power plants for the generation, several of which, presently, reduce power output to meet EnviroWhaco rules written to increase the use of Wind/Solar. WHICH ACTUALLY COSTS MORE THAN Nuclear Power Electricity – I KNOW, as I was a NPP Manager that knows the costs of each. Get rid of subsidies and W/S is cost prohibitive. Wind turbines have been around for more than 50 years – if they were cheap as claimed by EnviroWhacos there would be hundreds of millions in the world now. The only economically viable use of Wind Turbines is where they are used many miles from a source of reliable electricity. Like watering troughs on thousand-acre cattle farms.
To accomplish this should roads be made from asphalt or concrete?
Used and broken Wind Turbine blades.
Good intentions pave this road. Also some of the bad sort.
They will be putting sails on nuclear submarines to ‘reduce emissions’
What with sea level rise, going to need taller ships anyway.
That looks like a sub. Do they ‘release’ the sails, and come back to get them once the undersea mission is complete?
You forgot about sails — really big sails for a battleship !
Gets really silly? It has been that way for 40+ years. Longer, because the global cooling was blamed on people burning fossil fuels. With appropriate filtration, there is no problem burning fossil fuels. CO2 and water vapour from coal-fired power stations provides benefits, not harm. For “making organic chemicals without combustion” you need to provide evidence – for at least 6,000 processes…
Nick? Evidence? Same sentence??
What is silly is believing that “renewables” can provide the necessary amount of relatively cheap energy that a developed nation requires to thrive and prosper when all the evidence so far makes it clear that given the current technology, they can’t.
This time will be different.
Unbelievably clownish—burning coal is irreplaceable for all kinds of chemical processes, including reduction of oxide ores to metallic iron and silicon. Please explain you propose to accomplish this while covering the globe with wind turbines and PV.
And, what is the optimum concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?
Not irreplaceable. Directly reducing iron is a currently used process – normally done with syngas, but just hydrogen works as well. The old thermite process with aluminium is another alternative.
But the other alternative is to capture the CO2.
“But the other alternative is to capture the CO2.”
What an utterly STUPID concept.
Let the CO2 go where it does by far the most benefit..(and zero harm) ..
… the atmosphere. !
Nick, you haven’t answered the second question. What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?
From your link, Nitpick:
1000°C—where does this heat come from? I wonder…a wind turbine? /snort/
And where does the hydrogen come from, Nitpick? Oh that’s right, its a by-product of oil refining. Oops.
Farther down:
Yep, you need a big source of electricity, one that isn’t subject to “load-shedding”. The article goes on to say that India is the world’s largest steel producer using this process, and India’s electricity comes from … wait for it … coal.
Here’s my wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production
This shows that for 2021, world production was 1950 million-metric tons, of which India contributed 180 mmt. So less than 10% of the world’s steel production uses your vaunted “green” process.
And you avoided the problem of silica refining, not a surprise. If an Si crystal grower gets “load-shedded”, he throws the entire melt away, it is trash. How long will he stay in business?
That is the common leftist attempt to refute Mr. Stein that I have read many times in comments after his articles at CFACT.
The Climate Howlers Global Whiners never actually say all oil must be eliminated — they just say no burning of products made from oil.
Unfortunately they, and Mr. Stroker, have no idea that an oil refinery can not stay in business by producing gasoline and diesel fuel that can not be sold.
The mix of various products produced at existing oil refineries is not very flexible — perhaps production of a specific product could vary by up to +/- 5 percentage points.
An Overview of Refinery Products and Processes | FSC 432: Petroleum Refining (psu.edu)
The refinery infrastructure becomes a money loser if some of the gasoline and diesel fuel can’t be sold. And where would they store the excess fuels that result from that refinery?
Well, the way Biden is going, some of it could be stored in the Strategic Reserve. It will likely soon be empty anyway.
Name one politician of the net zero religion or one activist for climate salvation who is ranting that petroleum, gas, and coal only be used as industrial feedstock. All the anti-fracking and refusal to lease and permit activists are making exceptions for non-burning use of ff,are they not?
Lots of people rant, even at WUWT. Tune them out. The question is what will happen.
(SNIPPED)
Get back on topic!
No, I actually write very rationally.
Tiresome repetition of fraud, fiction and propaganda is not writing rationally. But it can sometimes be lucrative.
He’s a professional gaslighter.
“This gets really silly.”
Yes, YOUR comments have sunk far deeper than “silly”
Ludicrous, gormless... seem more suitable words.
There is absolutely ZERO reason for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels..
Using them more efficiently, sure. !
I still remember this one at the top of the hit parade:
I never vote on comments because that can influence readers before they start reading, which is unfair. I don’t want to judge comments by how popular they are.
I have to believe 149 down votes for Mr. Stoker’s short comment may be a record for this website, and I was sure tempted to be number 150.
Perhaps there should be some sort of participation trophy for Mr. Stroker, and a long-winded acceptance speech too?
He chooses to try gaslighting educated professionals about the green scam, he should not be surprised when the gaslighting fails.
Everyone lets stop making Nick the topic of the thread, get back to discussing this instead:
America’s Suppression of Fossil Fuels Is Courting a National Security Disaster
The aim is to reduce the *eating* of food. The food will still exist, and there will be no problem making osmotically-absorbed energy from it.
Too late…
story tip
U.S. intel chiefs warn Putin is expanding his nuclear weapons arsenal as the war in Ukraine drags on (cnbc.com)
Our nuclear upgrades got started during the Trump administration.
‘President Biden has been campaigning for years for the elimination of fossil fuels.’
Puppets don’t campaign. Their handlers do.
Campaigning from your basement is not qualified as proper (or improper, in his case) campaigning.
‘Meanwhile, Russia and China burn oil, gas and coal and emit greenhouse gases at levels that dwarf the West’s.’
Any particular reason for referring to ‘Russia’ here?
Well, that Russia is the world’s fourth largest emitter could be the reason.
Does Russia have any windmills?
Yes, but they’re Red, so they attract more wind.
Very nice, western leaders need to be replaced and educated.
That’s an understatement. I can’t think of very many current leaders that I would retain, were it up to me. The entire leadership of the Western world seem to be racing off the CO2 cliff, oblivious to the great danger their CO2 delusions are bringing to us all.
Idiocracy. Dangerous, destructive Idiocracy.
I’m pleased and grateful that Ronald has found his niche again. His terrible excursion into the dark side with African child labor and drive-by hits on the mining industry using Guardian and NGO sources that also are informing the Global Warming scam, Extinction Rebs and Malthusian memes.
Yes, wiping out the US and European fossil fuel industry IS the worst threat to national security you could dream up. I waxed strongly on this clear and present danger many months ago in the context of the war in Ukraine. Russia, Iran and China arent so foolish. They are reaping windfall profits on fossil fuels that pay for the war and the ability to produce war machinery, fund war. The premium they get can be seen to be played for by woebegone taxpayers of the West.
Green energy is a de-industrialization policy.
De-industrialization is a de-militarization policy.
It’s that simple.
If I wanted to destroy the West’s ability to fight Russia or China, I’d fund a propaganda war against fossil fuel and nuclear.
And bribe and blackmail a whole political and media class to support it.
MUCH cheaper than building precision weapons that work…
I think you have found the secret.
Spot on, Leo. And the info war proceeds almost without resistance. Almost. Tucker, and a few others are pushing back until the powers that be shut them off.
The Chinese are laughing all the way to Total Global Domination. It won’t matter how little CO2 the rest of the planet emits, China (and India) will more than make up the difference.
“Green Energy” as advocated by the Climate Alarmist nutters is civilizational suicide.
Over seven billion people live in nations that could not care less about Nut Zero. Some of them will have hands out for free green slush fund money, and some of that money might be used to build a few windmills and solar panels, if the greedy politicians don’t steal it first.
About 775 million people have no electricity, and about 400 million have sporadic electricity. Sporadic electricity is increasing, unfortunately.
In South Africa Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., the state-owned utility that supplies more than 90% of the nation’s electricity, can’t keep pace with demand from its old and poorly maintained plants.
Even in the US the percentage of days with less than 24 hours of electricity is increasing -already past the 1% or lower goal, and the last number I found was 1.4% of days (aka 98.6% reliable).
People without electricity could use coal instead of burning wood or animal dung. They are not going to transition from no electricity to sporadic electricity from solar panels and windmills.
“The Chinese are laughing all the way to Total Global Domination.”
They certainly are.
The only thing they are not laughing about is the next presidential election in the United States. They are paying close attention to that.
And they are a little bit disturbed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Chicoms should be concerned because it’s not just the House Republicans that are concerned with Chicom skullduggery, the Democrats are also on board. All the Democrats.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-votes-unanimously-condemn-brazen-chinese-spy-balloon-2023-02-09/
Both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House have voted almost unanimously to start investigations of the Chicoms and their attacks on the United States.
So the Chicoms are laughing, but there’s that little concern/doubt in the back of their minds, like the concern/doubt Trump put in their minds when he told them he would take military action against them under certain circumstances. Trump said they didn’t really believe that he would attack them like that, but Trump said there was about a 10 percent doubt in their minds, and that was enough to keep them from doing anything stupid.
That’s a Russian ship
Sure looks like it to me.
Yep. Slava Class Cruiser, i.e., Moskva.
And it was decarbonised, in a way..
Of course it is Russian. You know, bots and stuff.
How else is the Alt Right supposed to get their tinfoil headgear without Russian naval power?
/snark 😀
Anthony, CTM, et al: Not sure why you chose that cover photo. That’s a Russian Slava class missile cruiser. Ukraine sank one, the Moskva, in the Black Sea. That said, Mr. Stein is correct.
The French “greens”: nukes suck, they can only provide electricity!
Also the “greens”: we should just have wind and solar energy!
Good article, thank you Ron.
My co-authors and I wrote the following correct observations in 2002;
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– by Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian), Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Professional Engineer, retired (Queen’s U, U of Alberta)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Nothing has changed in the intervening 20+ years since we published our article, except the huge costs of this global-scale fraud:
– tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on “wasteful, inefficient” green energy scams;
– hundreds of millions of lives have been wasted, especially in the “developing world”, by denying them access to fossil fuel energy;
– most of our leaders, who are scientific imbeciles, have now adopted the “Global Warming” and “Net Zero” falsehoods;
– the same Climate fraudsters are now attacking our food supplies, again to allegedly fight fictitious Global Warming.
There never was any scientific or technical support for the CAGW and Green Energy scams – it’s always been false propaganda – wolves stampeding the sheep for political and financial gain – a false propaganda campaign concocted by extremists to harm our economies and promote their totalitarian agenda.
The latest chapter in this traitorous campaign is the Covid-19 scam, promoted by the same totalitarian elitists and supported by the same leftist imbeciles.
The Climate and Covid scams were Crimes Against Humanity – a war against scientific reason and technical competence that has exceeded the cost in lives and dollars of all the wars of the 20th Century. The promoters of these two great scams are the war criminals of our age and it is time to convene Nuremberg 2.0, try them and execute them.
Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., Calgary
https://energy-experts-international.com/
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
https://correctpredictions.ca/
Why a Russian Slava at the top?
The future they “envision” is one where the elitists will have a free access to the hydrocarbons while the unwashed masses won’t have electricity neither.
So they want to create a technology rift, where they control it all.
This, of course won’t work because when they do this they will cut themselves off from the innovation as well, but they are midwits and definitely don’t think that far.
We will need to increase fossil fuel usage by an order of magnitude to produce all the solar panels, windmills, batteries, EVs and carbon capture along with beefing up the grid for net zero
The power to do this cannot come from solar and wind because it takes many years for solar and wind to produce enough energy to double in numbers. It would take hundreds of years for solar and wind to produce enough solar panels and windmills for net zero.
The irony is that we would produce less CO2 simply by sticking to business as usual, using the most cost effective technology as it becomes available.
Subsidies reduce efficiency which ultimately raise CO2 on a global scale. Shutting down a natural gas generator in the US by taxes and regulation in favor of a coal plant in China looks good in the US, but does only harm globally
The math on batteries is simple. Take the total amount of electricity a battery can hold in it’s lifetime. Multiply this by the cost of electricity. The result will be close to the purchase price of the battery. Even for rechargeable batteries.
A battery does not truly store electricity. What it does is convert money into electricity.
For example. A $10k battery rated 100KWh. 10 cents a KWh yields $10k. So you are really not saving anything charging from home. You are paying twice. Once for the battery and again for the electricity. Effectively doubling your costs. 80% efficiency becomes 40%, very close to a modern ICE engine.
I’m not convinced the ruling class are unaware of this, it looks like it’s what they want (while ignoring the reality of what would actually happen). The fanatics will never understand it until they face that reality, at which point it will be too late.
The current admin in DC cares little, if anything, about the security of the USA, much less for the living conditions of the people who actually have to LIVE in this country! All they care about is disunity, divisiveness and propagating their own futures and re-elections! Oh, and don’t forget, the smearing and even ARRESTING of the ‘other’ Party as well as anyone who dares oppose them!
“[H]ow can the ruling class in the few wealthy countries of Germany, Australia, UK, Canada, and America, believe that all the infrastructures and products manufactured from crude oil…are not needed by future generations?”
They don’t believe it. They know damned well that those infrastructures and products that depend on crude oil are essential to future generations and to us now. They even know that it’s essential to their own lives. That’s exactly why they target those things: “They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself…They are the essence of evil…[They]…seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.“
Don’t grant them the stature of “ruling class.” They’re parasites running a kakistocracy. Nothing more.