Essay by Eric Worrall
According to Professor of Anthropology Ron Barrett, you don’t have to believe in climate action to benefit from renewable energy. But the professor has overlooked an important issue.
Can humanity address climate change without believing it? Medical history suggests it is possible
Published: July 10, 2024 10.14pm AEST
Ron Barrett
Professor of Anthropology, Macalester CollegeStrange as it may seem, early germ theorists could tell us a lot about today’s attitudes toward climate change.
While researching for a new book about the history of emerging infections, I found many similarities between early debates over the existence of microbes and current debates over the existence of global warming.
…
This was the case in the latter decades of the 19th century, when germ-denying surgeons nevertheless adopted the antiseptic techniques of Joseph Lister.
…
Responding to these claims, Lister stated:
“If anyone chooses to assume that the septic material is not of the nature of the living organisms, but a so-called chemical ferment destitute of vitality … such a notion, unwarranted though I believe it to be by any scientific evidence, will in a practical point of view be equivalent to a germ theory, since it will inculcate precisely the same methods of antiseptic management.”
Lister was more concerned with saving lives than winning arguments. As long as the surgeons adopted his methods, Lister cared little about their justifications. When it came to preventing infection, it was the behaviors rather than the beliefs that counted.
…
Republicans are more likely to prioritize the economic benefits of renewable energy than Democrats, who tend to list global warming as their driving concern.
The economic benefits could explain why red states produce the largest share of America’s wind energy and why three of these states are among the nation’s top five producers of solar energy. Their adoption correlates with the geography of the wind and sun belts, where farmers see favorable returns for producing power and a stable source of income to buffer the price fluctuations of weather-sensitive crops. Livelihood is a powerful motivator.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/can-humanity-address-climate-change-without-believing-it-medical-history-suggests-it-is-possible-230936
I completely understand why people who don’t believe in the climate crisis nevertheless respond to economic incentives.
A decade ago Anthony Watts discussed why he put solar panels on his own house.
The problem for Professor Ron Barrett’s theory of why people taking advantage of market distorting subsidies will drive adoption is renewable energy is in no way a solution to the world’s energy problems.
In the absence of affordable, long term energy storage, all renewable energy systems have to be backed by a duplicate dispatchable energy system, which can be activated at a moment’s notice when the renewables let you down – which they frequently do. The cost of maintaining two parallel systems – the fake renewable system, and the dispatchable system which produces power during the days or weeks when the renewables stop working, this is what drives up energy bills in states and nations which have embraced renewables.
In Australia, the threat the next government will pull the renewable subsidies and invest in nuclear instead appears to have dampened enthusiasm for investment. Renewables cannot compete with real energy, even nuclear power.
The charade of farmers filling their fields with renewables will only continue so long as taxpayer subsidies make it profitable to do so. The moment the subsidies dry up, so will the profits and new installations.
The great surgeon Joseph Lister is one of my heroes. There is a great documentary about Lister which I watched many years ago as a kid (I can’t find a link sorry), which details how Lister campaigned relentlessly, and made everyone in the hospital wash their hands and practice antiseptic and aseptic surgery, after he realised all the harm which transmission of contaminated material between patients was causing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How more wrong can you get I wonder…?
Apart from subsidies, there is no economic benefit.
Wind and grid solar are parasitic infection on the grid… we need to wash our hands of them !!
The reason most people go for solar to grid systems is that they make money supplying electricity in summer to pay for their grid electricity in winter. As someone else pointed out: good for small scale, bad for large scale. ‘Smart’ meters can and will control this remotely. The customer will have NO say in that. So much for being independent. The only way to be independent is to have a (dirty) battery off grid system. But this doesnt pay.
I remember years ago some people ( including my brother) used their own small wind turbine to generate their electricity. They are now ILLEGAL in Holland. Pity, really. Having yr own solar AND wind system could really help individuals. Alas, they want a generalised big scale system remotely controlled. Kinda reverse ‘power to the people’ thing..
I am reminded of the Spanish fiasco where a substantial amount of ‘solar energy’ claiming feed in tariffs was being generated at night…
…It turned out that the tariff more than paid for the diesel to run the generators hooked up to the ‘solar farms’…
“They are now ILLEGAL in Holland.”
What argument is made to make them illegal? Are they disturbing the neighbors? Because the government doesn’t want people off the grid? Just curious.
Because the government doesn’t want people off the grid?
Can’t have people be independent.
If there were economic benefits, there would be no skepticism.
Very nice Eric, a perfect response to Prof. Barrett.
If only there was a field of study other than anthropology to explain why this won’t work.
keynesians don’t need no stickin roi
This “Professor” must be named Roy Hinkley.
Anyone who professes that renewables are anything but expensive must have gotten their credentials from a coconut palm.
There is no economic benefit to an energy source that…
…depends on heavy government subsidies to be affordable to install
…depends on government subsidies to be affordable to maintain
…drives the industrial economy off shore from a lack of dependability
…cannot guarantee availability during peak usage time
…cannot guarantee availability during unfavorable weather
…cannot guarantee availability at night
…cannot guarantee equal availability at higher latitudes
…cannot guarantee equal availability regardless of seasonality
Renewable have zero economic benefit other than as subsidy farms
Plus.
Descimates remote natural habitats to construct industrial wind parks.
Descimates rare desert plants to carpet lands with solar arrays.
Destroys rare birds protected by statute outside renewable energy facilities.
NB The ‘renewable energy’ title comes from the fact the whole state funded scam has to be ‘renewed’ every 15 to 20 years.
And to remain financially viable subsidies need to be renewed annually
“A decade ago Anthony Watts discussed why he put solar panels on his own house.”
This seems to support Barrett completely. Anthony installed solar panels because they paid off handsomely. He says so. He didn’t get a significant government subsidy; he got a small rebate from PG&E. And he wasn’t trying to save the climate. Economic benefit was the driver.
How are the panels on your roof playing out for economic benefit Nick?
Much better than his back-yard wind-turbine. ! 😉
Great to see Nick saying wind and solar shouldn’t get massive subsides.
Well done NIck.
Doesn’t look like a lot of rooftop solar in uptown Moyhu.
I can only count 39 structures with rooftop solar if it were so
affordablecheap why aren’t there 120 rooftop installations?When I did the numbers for solar panels on my roof, it looked like an 11-year proposition to reach break-even.
During that time, many factors in the program could change, making the cost – benefit result more of a coin-flip than a reliable investment move.
So I passed on the panels.
(the roulette at the casino looked more entertaining, for the same risk – reward odds)
I guess my situation exactly reflected the macro proposition for renewables.
When I did the same, sufficient panels to produce the power I use daily would run close to $80,000. I would either need to put $30,000 into a new roof to support the panels or have to build a supporting structure (like a carport) the length of my house (56′) with a foundation to keep the driveway accessible which would also cost $30,000+/- then the battery back-up to run my house at peak usage for 8 hours. So around $80,000 to offset a $250 monthly electricity bill…$3,000 per year… $30,000 per decade… 27 years to break even and would ultimately need to replace panels twice in those 27 years at progressively greater costs from inflation pushing out the break even date even farther
So did you go ahead with the panels?
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
in my neck of the woods we average 4.5 hours solar insolation per day. my tiny 4 Schott 220s (hobby/experiment) built onto a farm wagon chassis will occasionally put out 625 watts and give me 6 KWh on a good day.
i religiously turn it twice a day to face the sun so that i don’t cry myself into depression every time i fire up my 6.7 liter turbo diesel.
I am not really worried about ROI because I know that once they bump e- rates to $0.40 it will be paying my way to bora bora
Now apply that to industrial sites with no backup. 😉
The only reason to install domestic rooftop solar is to recover some of the subsidy paid to all of the others.
I didn’t disagree people do things for economic benefit, but the societal benefit of Anthony installing solar panels on his roof is zero. Those panels contribute nothing to solving America’s energy needs, funding the incentives is a waste of taxpayers money.
But Anthony said he had no government incentives.
The panels lower the demand on the grid.
Solar panels destabilise the grid, they supply maximum electricity when nobody wants it, then die to nothing just in time for the surge in evening demand.
He got government incentives in a back handed way as the CPUC Dictated that the utilities had to pay retail rates and not wholesale rates for the home solar generation. As “Planning Engineer” pointed out on Judith Curry’s website, solar is not a problem at low penetration but becomes an expansive headache at high penetration.
Now that the CPUC is allowing utilities to pay wholesale rates for rooftop solar, the installation rate in California has dropped by 75%.
no doubt there are many other hidden subsidies/incentives
“The panels lower the demand on the grid.”
NO they increase the demands on the grid because they introduce instability.
Meeting supply isn’t the only “demand” on the grid.
Very tight stability of frequency is also a “demand”.
Reliability is also a “demand”
ie. customers “demand” stability and reliability, otherwise expensive equipment can be ruined.
Rooftop solar, meets neither of these “demands”, and in fact makes both of them more difficult to achieve.
I think they definitely lowered Anthony’s demand on the grid. However, as this sort of individual generation becomes more popular and pervasive, I think it has a negative effect on the existing generation and transmission “scheme” that is in use in the U.S.A. (probably more or less globally). Particularly as it distorts the planning for an electricity generating company to satisfy a forecasted demand on the grid. And, for grid operators to forecast the appropriate equipment and measures necessary to operate the grid.
We have reached a scenario that is paradoxical in nature. Early on, in the introduction of large scale electrical generation, the generating apparatus was locally controlled (local to a city or collection of nearby cities). The city supplied power generation and could “plan” their generating capacity accordingly (at least in theory) based upon the number of taps/meters on the local grid. We then moved away from that model and to a more centralized generating capability. It was done ostensibly for economics and efficiencies gained by scaling up the generation. Distribution networks that connected cities and industry were established to support the transmission of the centralized (not completely but regionally centralized) generation of electrical current. They would plan output capacities similarly (how many meters currently, how many forecasted in the future, what kind of meters [residential, commercial, industrial], etc…) to the way cities planned for their needs. They would build out as according to the forecasts.
So you have a situation in which you have built out a large generating capacity and that capacity is affordable so long as the input costs are kept low (of which fuel is one) and the consumers are many. A few people going “off-grid” probably won’t amount to much by way of affecting the price. However, as those “drops in the bucket” begin to accumulate, you lose the “scale” that makes your economy of scale work for power generation. In order to continue to operate your facilities in a manner that is profitable, you will need to reduce your output to reduce your costs, so that the product being consumed is affordable. You produce less in order to have the cost to price ratio remain “sane”.
I wonder now, if we don’t already have the technology available to move the power generating scheme back the other direction and still be as efficient (or more efficient) than a centralized / regionalized scheme. Maybe we need to have a more serious discussion about localizing the power generation at the point of consumption. Perhaps each building would need to have its own generating capability. Residences would need to power themselves (plus the capacity for extra generation to support expansion). You could accomplish this using a mix of generating systems (e.g. solar array + battery, multi-fuel turbine, etc..). Commercial buildings and multi-family dwellings could potentially operate their own generating systems as partnership if they wished.
The transmission grid might “go away” as a long distance transfer mechanism, or it could stay in place as a means to “plug in” temporary generating facilities for situations that occur after hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and other calamities.
Anthony had a lot of incentive from government. He sold it all and moved to Nevada. Turns out lots of people in California have done the same thing, as California has lost population every year for the last 5.
He lived in California then and the price of electricity had skyrocketed, as Obama promised it would.
Economic benefit is the core driver of all sensible decisions Nick.
That is what Prof Barrett is saying
When there are non-subsidized economic benefits to wind and/or solar, then the market will take note and cost effective systems will come into play.
At this point, there are no non-subsidized economic benefits to the general public. A few elites are raking in cash, though.
Anthropology prof Barrett needs to understand that economic gain is the driving force behind tomb robbing & treasure hunting … the stuff that is done to establish private collections the stuff that takes place despite the fact that anthropology and archeology sceptics that think such activities, and the resulting private collections are a bad thing.
Economic benefit is the core driver of bad things as well (illicit drugs, slavery, net zero, rap, etc). There is no big picture ecomic benefit from ‘net zero’ policies, just as there is no big picture benifit from grave robbing.
Sure, most people will do almost anything to benefit themselves economically, even if at the cost to the rest of us. Not much of a defense of the idea that we’re having a climate emergency necessitating the spending of gazillions of dollars.
I love it when Australians tell US citizens what the US government does and does not do for it’s citizens.
Sky News does the same thing. But I love the accents, its so cute. Put another shrimp on the barbie and drink a Fosters mate.
I just report what Anthony Watts actually said.
You can only tell this lie so long as the people being affected by the increase in cost start realizing they’ve been lied to.
But, as President Biden said this evening, it’s all about corporate greed.
greed is part of human nature- everyone has it- every company has it- every burro-ocracy has it- nothing wrong with it as long as a society has a balance of power among the different interests
Corporate greed, aka capitalism.
Corporations are limited by government laws on what percentage profit they can make.
We stock holders risk our pittance by investing hoping for a return on that investment. If we lose the money, its gone. So on the whole, we hope more investments succeed than fail. Otherwise there would be no point to investing.
Capitalists risk substantial fortunes by investing in business ventures hoping for a return on that investment. If they lose the money, its gone. So on the whole, they hope more investments succeed than fail. Otherwise there would be no point to investing.
The return on investment is not greed. It is payment for taking the risk. Success is highly beneficial to many more people than just the investor.
Greed is different. Greed is wanting something, selfishly clinging to it, and wanting it with no cost or risk. I want it now! (Veruka)
Whilst I don’t believe in the nonsensical alarm about catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 emissions, I do believe in the potential benefits of technological research and development, and whilst I believe there are negative economic consequnces associated with the rediculous attempt to control the climate, I can imagine there could be some positive outcomes that would never have occurred if there had been no scare about fossil fuels.
For example, there are many negative comments about BEVs because they are currently too expensive, have less range than ICE vehicles, and have batteries that pose a risk of spontaneous combustion.
But these problems are obviously being addressed. I think it’s reasonable to predict that within the next decade or so, we will see BEVs with safer batteries, a longer range, faster charging, greater durability, and lower cost. The BEV will then be a significantly superior product to the ICE vehicle.
Solar technology should also improve during the same period, so those who are planning to build a new home in the city suburbs, or countryside, will probably have the option to build their entire roof with solar tiles that have a 40 year warranty, and install an affordable, safe and durable battery storage system in the house.
If the entire roof, covering the verandahs, decks, garage, shed, and so on, is constructed with solar tiles, oriented towards the sun, then the household would have no electricity charges for around 40 years or more, and no fuels costs for their BEV. What could be better?
Proof of concept.
.
For the red thumber who didn’t “get it”
That is “Pie in the sky” !
Which is what Vincent’s suggestions are.
Is that a pork pie? 😊
By all accounts BEVs have reached the pinnacle of technological advancement for the time being … the low-hanging fruit has been plucked.
And so have photo-voltaic cells.
“By all accounts…..”
Wow! Very impressive! You are familiar with all accounts. Fantastic! Well done!
“…for the time being…”
Now I’m not so impressed. I thought Streetcred implied he was familiar with all accounts in the past, present and future. (wink)
Do you want to buy a bridge?
Then you fell out of bed and woke up.
Well, they want everyone to live in cities in apartments w very little roofspace. If we ignore dirty batteries and the supply chain issues, the dream of cheap, reliable home heating and EV for everyone seems well, should i say far fetched?!
That new battery tech etc is always 5 years from now. I think Mike Mills calculated the factual time it takes f new tech to become large scale. It is minimum 20 years. That is about as long as people have been talking about it (or longer). And that things like production do become cheaper over time because of enlarging scale, but up to a point. I remember it was around 20-30%.
You can of course dream bigger. But then you have to ignore the bottlenecks of which there are many..
Now why would I go with rooftop solar when, in a decade or so, I can have a Mr. Fusion?
and a hoverboard. Don’t forget the hoverboard.
“faster charging”
And pray tell, where are we going to get the extra TWs?
And how many batteries will you need to store enough power for when the sun don’t shine? How much will that cost in capital and maintenance? Or are you planning on using the grid during those times?
nice fantasy- and some day humans will all live together in harmony
Except in times of war, technological advancements were made based on supply and demand.
Make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
Technological advancements do come in steps and in surges. But the democracy of the customers, who vote with their wallets makes the decisions, not some remote, arbitrary bureaucrat or politician.
Forcing decisions on the population is autocracy. The first priority of any civilized government is to protect the population from the government. To do otherwise, despite noble intents, causes failure.
Those that ignore or refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Story tip.
https://nationalpost.com/news/ontario-town-to-decide-whether-its-willing-to-host-a-nuclear-waste-repository
Barrett’s main error is ignoring the huge difference in opportunity costs between washing one’s hands, as promoted by Lister and trashing one’s conventional energy sources, as promoted by the climate alarmists. Failure to do so leads him to state a false equivalence, i.e., a logical fallacy.
Yes.
I have accepted subsidies from state government for solar panels and Heat Pump. I am happy to accept subsidies that reduce my electricity bills but know the Global
Warming Mantra is total BS.
For the life of me I can’t understand why State Governments would rather throw cash at consumers than invest that cash in long term Baseload electricity generation.
The government paid you with my money.
Thanks for your contribution to my electricity bill.
Buying votes with OPM, farming for crony capitalists’ donations to election campaigns & etc.
According to Professor of Anthropology Ron Barrett, you don’t have to believe in climate action to benefit from renewable energy.
QED communist China perfessor but then you’re a comfy Western taxeater in a sheltered workshop.
PS: They are cottoning on to the game however which does present the old fallacy of composition problem after the solar panel slushfunding-
Home owners push for battery subsidy as solar power benefits become ‘increasingly marginal’ (msn.com)
The good Professor is probably also one of the people fortunate enough to be able to afford a chunk of rooftop empire upon which the sun never sets, with or without solar panels.
or many reasons it is simply not an option for vast swathes of people, with or without government intervention in the electricity market. Solar will remain a product suitable only for niche markets.
Same for EVs.
In the UK sales of BEVs at the half year stage of 2024 were only 0.5% up on sales at the same time last year.Market share was 16.5%. The vast majority of sales are to fleets.
Etc.
A more fitting analogy is the practice of bloodletting by quacks as a supposed cure for practically all ills just as so-called renewables are now pushed as a cure for the ‘climate crisis’ and practically everything else and just as bloodletting debilitated and often killed the patient adoption of large scale renewables will have the same effect on an economy.
“carbon emissions from our engines”…
.. is like scattering food for starving plants.
Oh dear, someone doesn’t know that CO2 is plant food…
… and that atmospheric CO2 levels are currently a lot lower than plants would prefer..
Bizarre !
There are many instances of lone scientists turning their field of study upside down such as plate tectonics, evolution, etc.
Barrett clearly doesn’t realise that he’s made the argument for lone scientists against the prevailing received “wisdom” of CAGW.
Those subsidies include private individuals w solar panels putting electricity into the grid at summer. But companies are now beginning to charge people for doing so instead of rewarding them. If most people are using solar to grid payment schemes this might turn into a negative. An extra factor is that grid operators or companies might simply stop accepting electricity by remote control via your ‘smart’ system. Overloading is already an issue. That will put people’s repayment scheme out of whack. Anthony is safe being an early adopter even though solar panels themselves have become cheaper. They are still produced by China under dubious conditions using very toxic materials. I bet Anthony has some uncomfortability with that fact. I wonder how he squares that My brother who is in the same position simply brushes it off. He is now complaining the solar company is changing the renumeration agreement. He had a contract for 2 years. They have started to bring down the rates of his solar panel output into the grid. They might stop it altogether when they want/need to. He lives in the Netherlands..
Your brother needs to work out how to get paid for not supplying the grid. National Grid were paying up to £550/MWh to Durch solar farms to stop exports on BritNed at one point last year.
Seriously, you think there are economic benefits?
I’m still angry that the cartoonist was canceled.
Adams is a free thinker. In today’s world of mass media censorship, that he would be cancelled at some point was inevitable. I pay for a subscription to his Locals site. It’s my most often used paid subscription. As someone who has followed his work since 1990, his Locals site is worth every penny. Plus he is now liberated to say things he could not say before he was cancelled. It’s worked out for him and for me as a long-time follower of his cartoons and of his opinions.
“According to Professor of Anthropology Ron Barrett, you don’t have to believe in climate action to benefit from renewable energy.”
Sure…. especially if you’re in the business of building wind and solar “farms”- or you’re a landowner who’ll reap annual profits by having such a “farm”.
I benefit from the solar farms installed in my area. I did not agree to them being built or to the land use, but after the fact when the sun shines I pay less. When it’s dark, I pay regular rates.
Niche applications can work. My grid is not addicted to or dependent on solar. Solar has a niche and in this case it fits nicely. This does not scale up at all.
Only a little problem. germs are real, man-made global warming aka climate change is not.
Michigan just passed a new solar energy bill. Allow sharing of solar savings, HOA can’t stop solar panels, etc.
The sad part is republicans joined in on the stupidity.
One flaw in the comparison.
People cannot see germs with their own eyes, but they can see their lights flicker.
Illness is an indirect indicator. Paying bills is a direct indicator.
Another flaw,
People can see germs with a microscope but can’t see renewable benefits with any assistance
Spend time in a pathology lab.