This week we look at green energy, and a book showing how it will likely fail in the near future. Think wind, solar, and batteries can replace the hydrocarbon fuels that power our modern industrialized society?
Green Breakdown shows why the Net Zero agenda―a forced transition to renewable energy―is costly, dangerous, and destined for failure. Using science, economics, and in-depth analysis, author Steve Goreham exposes the weaknesses in the planned green energy transition and predicts a coming renewable energy failure.
Join our host, Anthony Watts, and weekly panelists, Dr. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, and author Steve Goreham as we look at the pitfalls. Tune in LIVE for Climate Change Roundtable at Noon CT/1PM ET this Friday to engage in this enlightening discussion. Don’t forget to leave your questions to have them answered live during the show! Tune in to share your thoughts and be a part of the conversation.
Watch LIVE here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Combined Wind, Solar, and Battery systems consume more energy in their creation and maintenance than they will ever produce in their lifetimes. Prove me wrong, show me a single company using the output of these systems to construct them. I’ll wait…
Lower gain is not the same thing as loss. It’s horse vs car not haybail vs car.
So you haven’t responded to my question. If you can’t use your energy system to produce more of your systems, then it is an excellent indicator that it is a net energy sink.
wrong. tell that to nuclear power industry.
See what you did, you assumed that the cost driver is energy rather than material and labor. Well no more COO or CFO positions for you. kiddo
The Energy Cost in Solar Panel Production is Tiny.
1 kilogram of metallurgical grade silicon requires 14-16 kWh of power. Thats like cooking two turkeys. or running your oven for 7 hours.
net energy Sink?? . nonsense. and immaterial
and wrong
https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/
but go ahead show me a coal operation that uses coal for all its energy needs.
Prove me wrong, show me a single company using the output of these systems to construct them.
thats like argueing a nuclear power plant should be built with nuclear Power.
your claim is this
Combined Wind, Solar, and Battery systems consume more energy in their creation and maintenance than they will ever produce in their lifetimes.
that is a mathematical claim that You must prove. You simply dont get to Shift the Burden of Proof, to your opponents.
but go ahead, Prove to me that you know what Proof is.
meanWhile
The Concept you are struggling to articulate. is energy payback,
this is it for solar
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
show me a single company using the output of these coal plants to construct coal plants.
you see how dumb the argument is.
it would be like saying. Airplanes make no sense unless you can air ship all the parts to the factory.
in the
1700s when UK started using coal. Did Anyone Argue.
coal only makes sense if you can dig coal with coal power. Show me a miner with coal powered Shovels.
FF are dead.
get over it.
More pressure on lithium battery prices comes from eVTOL aircraft…it is growing fast…a single person machine is available now and there are many larger ones available and under development…..Tesla…Delta Airlines…Airbus…Boeing…lots of companies putting some money in….
I love the advertising spiel, range up to 100 miles, four passengers, thousands of pounds of cargo, etc.
And then reality hits. Where is you alternative airport and can you safely arrive and land there? There goes a large portion of that 100 miles. And most of them have no wings just propellers, like toy drones, when the power goes out, the craft comes down. Without significant redundancy a loss of control and uncontrolled descent follow from a simple single point of failure.
I’d rather walk.
I don’t believe an eVTOL will be in every driveway…but there is a use in agriculture and China does not have a restrictive FAA ….the military may use some…just more lithium required.
Linear scale vs volume issue matters for fying things. A plane twice as big carries eight times more.
Talk to someone (technical) in that industry.
The propaganda press never rests….recent stories about the 4 myths promoted by Climate Deniers…..and the Beginning of the Great Climate Migration….yes millions must flee the Great Warming.
Maybe certain Northern Eurasian nations will stop invading Southern neighbors if it’s not too cold to grow food in their own yard.
Has anyone ever calculated the harm that will be done by industrial scale wind if turbines are allowed to continue for another decade?
Isnt thatone of the things Goreham’s book is supposed to do? We should read it.
The Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum and the Sunspot Number is forecast to start dropping by NOAA starting in 2025 and to drop to single digits in 2031 and to zero in 2040 when the forecast ends. Sunspots are associated with hotter areas and more solar output and fewer sunspots mean less solar output and a colder Earth.
Solar physicist, Valentina Zharkova, discovered how two magnetic dynamos at different depths in the Sun give the 11-year sunspot cycle and another cycle of around 400 years. She says that the Sun is going to be cooling enough to lead to a mini-ice age for around 40 years with probable crop failures starting in a few years.
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
Bloomberg’s green-energy research team estimated it would cost $US 200 Trillion to stop Global Warming by 2050.
There are about 2 billion households in the world, that is $US 100,000 per household.
Ninety percent of the world’s households can’t afford anything additional. That means about $US 1 million per household in developed countries or about $US 33,000 per year for 30 years. The working people can’t afford anything near that.
The millionaires and billionaires have about $US 208 billion. That would cover it. Let the people of the world vote on this madness.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg
Argument seems non-linear. Sun spots or Bloomberg estimates or income inequality… which one is the problem?
“In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.”
Hah. Neat. Thanks for a Googling tip
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
It’s too cold for Hannibal to cross the Alps with elephants today.
Humans cause nearly 90% of wildfires in the United States via discarded cigarettes, unattended campfires, burning debris, or through equipment malfunctions.
https://wfca.com/articles/what-causes-wildfires/#:~:text=Humans%20cause%20nearly%2090%25%20of,debris%2C%20or%20through%20equipment%20malfunctions.
Bloomberg’s green-energy research team estimates it will take $US 200 trillion to stop warming by 2050 and calls that a bargain.
Figuring that there are about 2 billion households, that is about $100,000 per household. Also figuring that 90% of the households in the world don’t have extra money, that would be about $1 million dollars for households in developed nations or about $30,000 per household per year over 30 years to stop temperatures from rising 1 degree Celsius.
That is completely unaffordable. Given the choice between having temperatures rise 1 degree or having $1 million dollars almost everybody would prefer the $1 million dollars.
The millionaires and billionaires have $208 trillion in wealth. That would cover it except they own the media that is pushing “Climate Change”.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg
Bloomberg’s estimate is far too low. New Zealand’s net zero plans have been independently costed at 5 trillion dollars. That is one million dollars for each New Zealander. Extrapolating this to the entire world gives a cost of 7 quadrillion dollars.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/08/reality-check-drive-for-rapid-net-zero-emissions-a-guaranteed-loser/
This recent study shows that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We can’t easily protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict and our blood pressure to rise leading to increased heart attacks and strokes in the cooler or colder months.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
This article from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
The energy of the Sun that reaches the Earth has been at its highest level over the last 70 years of any time since 1610. That is what is warming the Earth. The Sun warms the oceans and the oceans warm the air. The oceans are 2,000 times the weight of the air. For the air to warm the oceans 1 degree the air would have to be 2,000 degrees.
Chart of the energy the Earth has received since 1610: lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/nrl2_tsi_P1Y
scvblwxq:
I think you need to make a blog to post all this stuff on.