Essay by Eric Worrall
More “proof” that renewables are the cheapest form of energy?
The pioneering carbon dioxide moonshot that could help tackle climate change
Jul 5, 2023
- Time is running out to tackle the climate crisis – we need urgent solutions.
- In the spirit of the moon landing, action is needed to limit global warming.
- Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage could help achieve net-zero.
On 12 September 1962, in a football stadium in Houston, President John F. Kennedy set in motion one of the most daring feats of innovation in modern history. Despite opposition from environmentalists, civil rights leaders and even his own brother, Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the moon” address unified a divided America grown weary from war and fearful for the fate of the nation.
…
Today, with war returned to Europe and the global economy reeling from COVID-19 we are once again anxious about the fate of the world and doubtful about our ability to change it, not least when it comes to the biggest challenge we face today – climate change. A World Economic Forum surveyfound that while 85% of people believe it is extremely (or very) important to address climate change, but only 40% of North Americans and 31% of Europeans are optimistic about our ability to do so. And there is ample reason for scepticism.
…
Our remedy – to reduce emissions as fast as possible – is not enough. If we are to stabilise Earth’s climate by the end of this decade we need new moonshots.
…
Read more: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/07/pioneering-carbon-dioxide-moonshot-tackle-climate-change/
All this comes hot on the heels of a reminder that Swiss Re estimates US $196 trillion is required to fix the climate crisis.
I can’t remember the exact number, but I’m pretty sure the actual US Apollo Mission moonshot didn’t cost $196 trillion, even in inflation adjusted dollars.
Don’t forget folks, renewables are the cheapest form of energy /sarc.
“WEF: “We Need Moonshots” to Solve the Climate Crisis”
He actually says we need moonshots to solve the climate crisis by the end of the decade. And I guess we would.
Most people plan to proceed at a more sober pace.
Careful Nick, people might accuse you of climate denial, for suggesting the climate crisis is not as urgent as some people make out.
depends on how he defines “sober”- if he means that magical time, 2050- that’ll happen all too quickly so I don’t consider that sober
“climate crisis”
Tell us Nick, how does one “solve” something that DOES NOT EXIST except in the fevered imagination of you and your fellow climate goonies.
It is obvious that no amount of psychiatric help will help you. !
WE know that the green blob is not interested in reducing carbon emissions Nick, because they oppose the one method that actually works and is financially viable.
Nuclear power.
All they want is to trouser wads of taxpayer money on pretend solutions.
Please book sometime with Prof Plimer; even if you cannot bring yourself to describe exactly why you consider CO2 is a planet polluting, warming and thereby harmful, element, he has the gravitas to disavow you, in Strine to just straight plain English, of your ridiculous fantasy.
Or perhaps you really do believe that human beings can “stabilise the climate”? of this planet in the face of the billions of years of solar influence or the effect of all that water on this planet? Is the Island of Dreams your favourite Judith Durham song, because you appear to inhabit it.
The pace they are proceeding looks very like going backward. China, for instance, seems to have approved coal installations amounting to about half the UK’s generating capacity. In the first quarter of this year. Source was the Guardian. The countries that are actually taking concrete steps to reduce emissions are only about 20% of global emissions, and even they are only reducing smallish fractions of their emissions.
I don’t see any signs that anyone believes in it.
And the measures the activists in the West advocate are impossible, and even if possible, useless. The idea that we can move to EVs and heat pumps and at the same time convert our grids to wind and solar is ridiculous, impossible. But worse, even were it done, even if it worked to lower our emissions, it would have no material effect on global emissions or temperatures.
If you are one of the few people in the West who seriously believes in a pending climate catastrophe (which I think Just Stop Oil probably are), you have to accept the fact that emissions are going to carry on increasing, with all the effects you believe this will bring. Figure out what to do in this situation. Because global emission reduction is wishful thinking, its not going to happen. So get ready to live with the future that is coming.
“Because global emission reduction is wishful thinking, its not going to happen. So get ready to live with the future that is coming.”
That’s the bottom line.
The Western nations are destroying themselves in a futile effort to reduce CO2.
The rest of the world is carrying on as usual and are not destroying their economies over CO2.
🤣🤣🤣🤡
Got yer battery car yet, Stokes?
Most people plan to proceed at a more sober pace.
Yeah we noticed where the new priorities lie as they’re losing the hearts and minds-
Australian energy ministers to consider renaming natural gas to ‘fossil gas’ in law (msn.com)
You can change the names from global warming/heating extreme weather climate change climate crisis or whatever and it’s still a pile of stinking poo doomsaying. PR and semantics won’t cut it once you’ve run out of helicopter money and the serfs have to pay the real energy destruction bill like they are now.
Proceed where Nick. What is our current starting position? Where do we need to be? You can’t begin to proceed until you know where you are going. I am looking for your metrics here. If we could get there, wherever you think there is, how will the Government stabilize us at that dream state in which the danger is no longer threatening us and we can put an end to the hobgoblin media reports? Since in a State of Fear is where the rich and powerful want to keep us, I doubt we will see any end to “end of days” reports. They will always find boogiemen in our closets. But most important, how do you suppose staying in “This porridge is just right” state of climate will affect the quality of the average citizen’s life? Or are you too wealthy to care?
Nick, thank you for informing us of your guess.
Duly noted.
Most people, especially in poor countries, couldn’t care less about the so-called climate crises
I think the idiot had too many ‘shots’ at his local bar
In a flash of inspiration I have solved the problem. Rather than moon shots we need Mars shots, loaded with our CO2.
It is a win win. We get rid of the co2, & can develop an increased atmosphere for mars, even if it is CO2.
Then of course, when we realise we actually need more CO2, we can go & gather it up on Mars, & bring it back.
We can discuss this over a shot at the Mars Bar? Geoff S
I can be silly if they can.
A man walks into a bar.
Ouch! It was an iron bar.
H/T Tommy Cooper
I think we need plants to have voting rights on this issue…
They already have – they ‘vote with their feet’
When they leave the premises, so do we with no choice in the matter.
end of story, end of everything in fact.
We do do wanna be doing things to encourage them to stay and grow.
Sorry, wrong no.
Burning, tillage, biomass, ammonium nitrate and Glyphosate are NOT = Encouragements
The only possible beneficial Moonshots might be one-way trips carrying Climate Scientists so that they can visit, stay and forever after enjoy lives of complete insanity in the Carbon-free existence that they crave.
These people are genuinely and certifiably mad – while with the power they’ve now got, Utterly Clueless and Genocidally Dangerous
……
Vermont has given the 16 year olds the right to vote. Is that close enough?
If 16 is good, wouldn’t 12 be better? Vermont? Not Massachusetts?
The Green vegetables already have the right to vote.
“Time is running out to tackle the climate crisis”
I will be really really glad when this seemingly inexhaustible climate crisis time runs out. They’ve had decades of 5- and 10-year time limits and it hasn’t run out yet.
It’s because people like Guterres at the UN address all their final warnings to the west. If they don’t face east while speaking then CO2 emissions will continue to climb.
They will keep the climate crisis going as long as they possibly can. It’s the perfect excuse for state capture…Ask Elon…
Close. They will keep the Climate Crisis going until the new WEF fascist state is fully in place and the useless eaters have been eliminated. Then it won’t be useful anymore.
Yes, the Human-caused Climate Change narrative is the perfect vehicle for forcing totalitarian government on the people.
Please not again ..
The gulf between the rhetoric and reality becomes evermore comical.
It’s not really a laughing matter. These Climate Change fools, and their actions to reduce CO2 have already put my electric grid and electric grids across the country in jeopardy of blackouts.
I won’t be laughing if my electicity goes out on a 105F day.
I guess it is about time to invest in a propane-powered generator for the house. It’s not safe to leave one’s fate in the hands of Climate Change Alarmists.
How long before Propane is outlawed?
Reducing CO2 emissions is definitely NOT the aim of the COP meetings. Many of the attendees have become millionaires on the back of the scam, and the others have enjoyed first-class holidays and other perks.
Oops, my mistake. I initially read the title as –
WEF: “We Need Moonshine” to Solve the Climate Crisis
And methane capture…
It would be interesting to know just how much all the benefits fossil fuels have brought to mankind are worth in $trillions. The refrain is always how awful they have been yet they are used everywhere and by everyone amplified by the WEF lunatics and the corporate media.
Moonshot abuse. Once again, the cost of the Apollo programme is a pittance compared to what we have already spent on unreliables.
The absurd thing is that if all the money they have spend on renewables had been spent on nuclear power, electricity would be 5c a unit and completely carbon neutral.
There was an interesting insight into the activist mentality in a Guardian editorial the other day. It was on the subject of Toyota’s innovation in batteries. If this is real, it allows 10 minute charging and vehicle range of 800 or so miles.
You’d think the Guardian would welcome this. It would mean that electric cars and trucks would become practical as replacements for ICE.
No, they weren’t. They were worried that this might keep cars going and take away from public transport, which is their favored measure to… what exactly? Not any more to save the planet. EVs with decent battery technology has always been claimed to be part of doing that. No, its because the Guardian wants to move everyone to public transport, and the continuing ownership of cars is a factor against doing that. So actually, better batteries are not a good thing.
But there is still hope. Because not enough will be made in time, so even with them car ownership will have to fall. Which is what we want.
The first time I have seem this last point pretty clearly stated as a policy objective. Usually its just go EV and reduce emissions and carry on as usual. Which is clearly not possible. But here we had the real agenda surfacing.
Plug your Toyota in with that demand and the local electricity sub station would go down with the surge.
That’s assuming the power cable to the car didn’t melt first.
The circuits should have breakers to protect the conductors and substation.
… at least they would if the engineers follow the National Electric Code.
We don’t have time to follow the standards, we have a planet to save.
The false urgency that is always injected into statements about action needed to “combat climate change” always reminds me of those scammers who tell you that the “special price” is only available until midnight today…
WEF: “We Need Moonshots” to Solve the Climate Crisis
Well this great moonshot is all about bioenergy with carbon capture storage (BECCS).
In essence we burn biofuels, capture the CO2 produced as well as CO2 capture from the astrosphere and then convert some of to bioethanol, make the excess CO2 a liquid and store it underground.
The plant matters harvested will then re grow and so on.
Now I have heard everything.
In reality is says cut down forests, special biofuel ones that is, and burn them, replant and wait for 20 plus years for useful regrowth.
It will take about 20 years for a tree to be useful to chip and burn up.
I am waiting for the unpleasant day this buried CO2 escapes and fills up valleys and low areas and kills of people.
I am sure at present not many insurance companies are backing CO2 capture experiments yet.
Silly question:
Why can’t that be applied to good old fossil fuels instead.
(OK I know they are old hat and out of date)
Who elected the WEF?
Self appointed.
Y’know, like Biden.
Geoengineering Monitor has an article on BECCS here:
https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2021/04/bio-energy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-beccs/
“Geoengineering Monitor”
It’s good to see somebody is monitoring these crazy geoengineering schemes.
These climate change fools are jumping through hoops trying to rein in CO2, when there is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth. No evidence whatsoever, yet look at the insanity caused by people who claim there is, and the people that believe them.
It’s Mass Delusion, driven by a political agenda: Absolute Control of Society.
From the article: “Despite opposition from environmentalists, civil rights leaders and even his own brother, Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the moon” address unified a divided America grown weary from war and fearful for the fate of the nation.”
America was not divided in 1962, not like today, anyway, and Kennedy’s speech focused NASA on a specific goal. There was no organized oppostion to Kennedy’s “Go to the Moon” dream. And what war in 1962 are we talking about being weary of? There was no war in 1962.
The “historian” that wrote this distortion of reality should do a little more homework before making a fool of himself again.
Well, I think it was the fear of nuclear war that was alluded to—“missiles in Cuber” and all that.
There was the Cuban Missile crisis, but it didn’t last that long, just a couple of weeks.
Other than that, the U.S. was between wars, the Korean war ending in 1953, and the Vietnam war not really getting started until 1965.
From the article: “If we are to stabilise Earth’s climate by the end of this decade we need new moonshots.”
Such hubris!
The author doesn’t have a clue.
From the article: “Don’t forget folks, renewables are the cheapest form of energy /sarc”
Yes, I heard a CBS reporter give a report repeating that lie on tv just yesterday. The reporter was doing a story on carbon capture and interviewed a scientist who said carbon capture should be rejected in favor of installing more windmills and solar because they are cheaper than other forms of electricity generation.
Of course, we know that is not true. Not even close to being true. But climate alarmists keep repeating this lie.
All the Climate Change Alarmists have are lies and distortions.
Yeah, that lie gets everywhere. I’ve seen no end of morons parrot it without the slightest idea what they’re actually saying.
£12Bn in subsidies every year for wind in the UK. At least.
“Because the earth will become inhabitable by (choose your year), we, the ultra rich, will escape the climate catastrophe by emigrating to the moon.”
Now, if Klaus & Co would just emigrate to the moon as soon as possible, the earth might become a better place on which to live. (And make sure there’s plenty of room in the spaceship for all of the climate alarmists, too.)
Let’s just send the whole UN to the Moon! That would be money well spent!
Would be cheaper to send them all on a submarine tour of Titanic.
You mean the earth is uninhabitable right now?
Wow, this truly is the Matrix……..🤣
Sorry, couldn’t resist it.
The oceans already do carbon capture on a massive scale and covert this to rock on the seafloor. Humans could not begin to equal this without a fantastically massive source of zero pollution energy.
I wonder if the rate at which the ocean does this is a function of how much CO2 is available to it- just above the water line. So, if there is more CO2, will the rate of absorbtion by the ocean increase? (other things like air temperature, etc. being equal). I suppose this is basic climate science but I’ve never studied topic formerly, other than what I read online and in a few books for the laymen- and my question wasn’t addressed, that I can recall.
There is no climate crisis, so … No.
“I can’t remember the exact number, but I’m pretty sure the actual US Apollo Mission moonshot didn’t cost $196 trillion, even in inflation adjusted dollars.”
25 billion dollars according to a site I found after googling- of course that’s not inflation adjusted but regardless- it’s still trivial compared to going full “nut zero”
At 1/50 inflation since 1968, $25 billion –> $1.25 trillion, two orders of magnitude below net zero $200 trillion (and this is likely a generous number).
Apparently, the head of the WEF (World Enslavement Forum) has a bust of Vladimir Lenin in his office:
Klaus Schwab Has a Statue of Lenin in His Office: What Does It Signify? – PJ Media
That should tell us what we need to know about him and political nature of the WEF. “You will own nothing and be happy.” You’ll own nothing and be happy – Wikipedia. They can have my property when they remove my cold dead body from my home.
The only Moonshot needed should be the one that sends Herr Schwab and his ilk to the Moon. There should be no rush to bring them back.
Who elected the WEF?
Here is a question that continues to puzzle me. If CO2, which is .06% of the atmosphere by weight, is doubled, will it have an impact on surface pressure? If not, how does the surface temperature change I just don’t understand how such a small change in atmospheric mass can produce a 3-degree increase in surface temperature. The Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) would seem to rule out such an outcome.
6.02 x 1023 particles (1 mole) of ANY GAS occupies 22.4 Liters at STP.
22.4 liters is about a 5 gallon pail full. In that 5 gallon pail of air will be 2.4 x 10^20 molecules of CO2. That’s a lot of molecules if you want to start counting….
That CO2 absorbs infrared radiation very well as opposed to the N2 and O2 molecules which are transparent to IR (at Earthly temperatures). 2.4 x 10^20 is more than enough CO2 to warm the 2500 other air molecules around the CO2 molecules, as the mean time between molecular collisions is about 0.2 x 10-9 s and the “temperature” is a measure of the velocity of the molecules.
When I say CO2 absorbs IR very well….this is an exaggeration at many wavelengths of IR. Refer to this:
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
No, it isn’t, and so no, we don’t.
Macron: “you can’t eat money”.
Macron may be a dirty punk (think ANTIFA) born in the wrong body of the Wolf of Wall Street, and a retard (*), but he is correct: money has no inherent value. The value is only in what people willing to take your money are able to build.
Billions or trillions will not give you a lift to the Moon because you can’t find someone with the ideas to design it and you can’t find the proper material either, at any price. We can’t build the proper cable even if the idea is cool.
(*) No, really. Macron was baldy humiliated during a debate by Marine Le Pen (MLP) during a debate, and on economy and finance and BANKING (Macron comes from Rothchild Bank, he should know a thing on banking). And MLP is the French far “right” that is a leftist.
It never did. It’s an exchange medium, a token if you will.
It evolved to represent precious metals, like gold, which was difficult and inconvenient to carry, as well as to divide up to buy say, an apple.
It also evolved to allow people of different skills to exchange goods and services across a level playing field.
Instead of a lawyer receiving crates of perishable vegetables for his work to write a farmers will, the farmer instead sold those vegetables to lots of people, for money, so he could pay the lawyer, in money. The lawyer was also one of his customers but only bought what he required, not what would sit in his pantry and rot.
The exchange was physical labour for intellectual labour.
The lawyer couldn’t survive by writing a will for the farmer every week, the farmer didn’t need or want that, so the lawyer sold his intellectual labour elsewhere to, perhaps, a wealthy industrialist, physical labour, for intellectual labour, in order to purchase the fruit of the farmers physical labour when he needed food, intellectual labour for physical labour.
That symbiotic relationship between all three was made possible by the mutually agreed exchange mechanism of a token representative of the value of the labour expended and the value thereof.
Crudely explained and only a thumbnail guide.
It also made trade more efficient.
Say you were a farmer who had lots of apples, but you needed a ladder.
Your problem is that the guy who builds ladders, doesn’t like apples.
Without money, you would have to find a person who does like apples, but has something that the ladder builder does want.
Money allows all transactions to be a one to one relationship.
The farmer sells apples to anyone who wants apples, in the quantity that they want to buy for money.
Then the farmer in turn can buy whatever he wants from anyone who is willing to accept the currency of the land (which is usually just about everyone).
Money can also be stored, apples can’t.
To paraphrase a quote attributed to former US Senator Everette Dirksen:
A moonshot here, a moonshot there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
“Biden set his ‘moonshot’ on cancer”
— https://www.npr.org/2023/02/15/1157225581/cancer-biden-cure-research-moonshot-institute-funding-bipartisan-sotu#
Mission Economy – A moonshot guide to changing capitalism by Mariana Mazzucato
— https://marianamazzucato.com/books/mission-economy
“Climate change is the moonshot of this generation” says Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland— https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/mary-robinson-climate-change
Many other examples can be found . . . all spoken with little regard for associated costs to citizens/taxpayers, of course!
In the 1950’s, we knew how to go to the moon. The difficulty was in perfecting rocket motors powerful enough to get us there.
The problem with curing cancer is that with the exception of a few types of cancer, we don’t know how to cure it. Declaring a “moonshot” to cure cancer at this time would be like declaring a goal of getting to the moon while the Wright brothers were still designing their first Flyer.
Story tip?
Damaged electric cars ‘quarantined’ over fears they will explode
Probably not the moon-shot they have in mind.
From your link:
“Just two damaged electric cars can fit into the same space that would otherwise fit 100 petrol or diesel cars, under current the DVLA and Transport Department guidelines.”
This doesn’t bode well for the future of lithium-powered EV’s.
How does one determine if their battery is damaged enough to require taking it in for repair? Does everyday driving cause unnoticed damage to the batteries?
I would not buy an EV under the conditions we have today.
If every fender bender requires a trip to the repair shop in order for your battery to be checked out, that’s going to add a lot to the maintenance costs of electric vehicles.
Modern cars tend to require attention after a fender bender. Things like collision avoidance sensors and blind spot monitoring modules may require adjustment after a minor collision. Being out of alignment by even a couple of degrees can give false readings.
We need a Manhattan project to reduce CO2 and fortunately, we already had one. It was called the Manhattan Project. Nuclear fission solves all our energy problems. All you climate activists can now go home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvD7OHEV5TM
Hah! Many are curious to see how nuclear fission (power generation) will be the source of energy that supports aircraft and railroad passenger and cargo transportation.
Oh, you want to talk about compact nuclear fission reactors? . . . yeah, like that’s “just around the corner” . . . still!
Knew they were shooting the moon. Nice of WEF to admit it.
” WEF: “We Need Moonshots” to Solve the Climate Crisis ”
Do they mean moonshine shots?…
You can do a lot of things if economics is not in the equation.
I’d love to know which “think” tank invented the data that 85% of people think that solving global “warming” is either important or very important.
Every survey I have seen has people rate their concerns, global warming always comes in dead last.