The wheels are falling off the Net Zero bandwagon

[GregLocock]

To be fair to Little Inch, yes there is a certain amount of wry satisfaction when 'my' predictions and observations seem to be on the right track.

[ul]
[li]The models are generally useless[/li]
[li]The rent seekers installing wind turbines and solar panels and insufficient storage are creating an expensive and unreliable electricity grid[/li]
[li]BEVs are a good fit for some people, but subsidising second cars for rich people is a rotten use for public funds[/li]
[li]The weather is, generally speaking, less atrocious than it has been in the past[/li]
[li]The financial impact of extreme weather events is increasing because we have more, richer, people living everywhere[/li]
[li]Attribution science is Just So stories for ill educated teenagers and their ilk.[/li]
[/ul]

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Are we just supposed to do nothing??

So, my problem with "green new deal" folks of the world are multiple.
1) Yes, the climate is warming. But, the PREDICTIONS of the climate modelers and alarmists seem to be way off. AOC said "the world is going to end in 12 years... and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it!" That was 5 years ago now.
But, I se ZERO evidence that we're now 7 years away from the end of life on our planet as we know it.

2) The question we should be asking is one of Energy Economics. What is the most efficient way to spend our money related to the POTENTIAL problems that will occur in the future. Options include:

a) Spending something like 90 TRILLION dollars that we don't have to basically destroy our economy and cause terribly human misery in the assumption that this will prevent disaster. We would also basically be sacrificing ever major freedom that we have to make this happen. So, totalitarianism, miser and death for a POSSIBLE benefit.

b) Use our money more efficiently now. Invest in carbon free Nuclear energy while we can. This is far safer and more efficient and scalable than any other "green energy" we have right now. But, these same politicians that demand we sacrifice our liberties to them NOW, for some reason never seem to want to consider nuclear. Heck, many of them don't want to think about Hydro-Electric either.

c) Keep our economy vibrant and functional now and in the foreseeable future so that we can afford the costs of adapting our society for an uncertain future. This may include moving people from coastal areas. Investing in farm lands in different areas than where it exists now.​

So, it is not just possible, but PROBABLE that that "doing nothing" will cause less damage and immiseration than going all in on the currently proposed climate change solutions.

I would prefer option 2b or 2c over option 2a which I presume is the goal of the "net zero" folks, the alarmists and the totalitarian Marxist. I presume (based on how you worded your post) that this net zero / totalitarianism is your preferred preference. Is it? Maybe you'll say "net zero is my goal, but without the side of totalitarianism". But, Net Zero just isn't feasible with the technology we currently have in the time frames we're talking about. It's a fantasy based on unicorn farts and magical thinking. And, the ONLY way we can get anywhere close to that is with totalitarianism and major world wars that force all countries to adopt this suicidal ideology..... Even then, it won't happen, but it will lead to billions of deaths (not from global warming, but from the "solution" to a problem that is much less dangerous than we're led to believe).

 

[GregLocock]

We are just doing nothing. Transferring all our CO2 emissions to China is a politician's solution and will if anything result in higher CO2 emissions.

As I have demonstrated several times over solar plus wind plus batteries is not going to give a reliable net zero grid at an affordable cost (or even a feasible amount of battery storage). If you want to get the grid to nearly net zero then nukes for the baseload, gas peakers for dunkenflautes, and a limited rollout of solar/wind/battery/hydro/geothermal/pumped storage might get you there. The larger problems such as long haul flights, cement, steel etc. are even harder.

But we aren't serious about CO2. We fly early season fruit to China from Australia, the later stuff goes by boat.

https://www.orchardtech.com.au/australian-nectarines-and-peaches-arrive-in-china-by-flight/

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

And now this thread will never receive a counter point...

 

[Tomfh]

But, Net Zero just isn't feasible with the technology we currently have in the time frames we're talking about. It's a fantasy based on unicorn farts and magical thinking. And, the ONLY way we can get anywhere close to that is with totalitarianism and major world wars that force all countries to adopt this suicidal ideology..... Even then, it won't happen, but it will lead to billions of deaths (not from global warming, but from the "solution" to a problem that is much less dangerous than we're led to believe

Exactly. Underneath it all is a dangerous fanatacism, ready to cause massive destruction to achieve their delusional utopia. The term 'Net Zero' always reminded me of 'Year Zero,' an earlier obscene attempt to reset society. The difference now is that the whole world is caught up in the climate hysteria.

 

[hokie66]

Posturing about 'net zero' is all political, but it is potentially catastrophic to our way of life.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jd-vanc...wloqzje3osg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[Tomfh]

I just received the latest edition of Engineers Australia's magazine, and it’s yet another "special edition" dedicated to climate, net-zero, and decarbonisation! Hooray!

Apparently, our role as engineers ought consist of closing our eyes to the technical realities, and instead "showing leadership" by cheerleading for what is, as you’ve pointed out, a destructive political agenda.

It’s particularly disappointing to see the messaging from our peak engineering body reduced to that...

 

[TugboatEng]

This is where the deplatforming has been so devastating to intellectualism. You don't need to actually say something contrary, you need to actively support these causes of you want any visibility.

Imagine if one could be kicked out of a pub for telling lies.

 

[dik]

The wheels fell off that bus a long time ago... it was never going to work. The problem is so consequential that it will take a concerted effort by all parties. This is not going to happen. The country with the largest per capita carbon footprint will not let it happen. Someone is going to pipe up and say China is the problem... China has a similar infrastructure and 5x the population, so you would think they would be high

Florida's governor has taken action... "Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs a bill that strikes climate change from state law" and there are 49 others like him. The SCOTUS has neutered the EPA. The US had over a million Covid deaths and did nothing... I wonder how many climate change deaths it will take? There's a reason that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Careful, dik. Your blood pressure.

tomfh, I am not a member of Engineers Australia anymore but would write a letter in protest if I were. You write well, so let them have a piece of your mind.

 

[TugboatEng]

Dik, was that a response to my comment? I can't really tell what you're trying to say.

Are you saying we should start counting deaths "with" climate change like we did for COVID? If you go that route all deaths will be with climate change.

Is Communism the reason Cuba has lower infant mortality?

You're really off the deep end on this post.

 

[dik]

Dik, was that a response to my comment? I can't really tell what you're trying to say.

The wheels on the bus have fallen off...

Are you saying we should start counting deaths "with" climate change like we did for COVID? If you go that route all deaths will be with climate change.

You may as well... just like Covid. And you could start counting now.

Is Communism the reason Cuba has lower infant mortality?

NO... just your fuked up medical system. I just spent two months in hospital; I have no idea of what the US cost for that would be.

You're really off the deep end on this post.

What part is in error?

Careful, dik. Your blood pressure.

Sorry Hokie, I'm actually quite calm; I almost never get upset or worked up. I just checked it' 114/64... about what it normally is. I think my son's tagline pretty much sums things up.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[GregLocock]

Ampol did a bit of greenwashing and promised to build lots of EV chargers. Turns out that according to experts you need electricity to run chargers. I am particularly amused by this one as my sums indicating the need for new transmission lines and power stations up the Hume Highway if we switched to EVs were met with condescension and disbelief.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Is Communism the reason Cuba has lower infant mortality?

No, it's because they don't report deaths the same way we do. And, that's assuming their numbers are even halfway honest.

I had a friend who's baby had developmental issues. She was taken into the hospital and put on bed rest. They did a number of interventions to stimulate lung development and she gave birth a little over 20 week (IIRC). The baby was in the NICU for something close to 3 months before he eventually died. That would probably be considered infant mortality in the US. In Cuba, they'd consider it a miscarriage and wouldn't even report it. Heck, if the Drs knew about the development issues they may would have immediately aborted the baby whether the parents wanted this or not.

 

[dik]

Sorry Josh... It's the same methodology. Scandinavian countries are all of the same magnitude... about half the US. Black infant mortality is noticeably greater than white. It's your health system...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

Cuba's health statistics are about as reliable as the grain production figures during the Great Chinese Famine.

These are authoritarian socialist regimes. Doctors are punished for reporting too frankly on conditions. The official health figures should be interpreted accordingly.

 

[TugboatEng]

Dik, how many black infants are in Scandinavian countries? You just explained the discrepancy.

 

[dik]

Sorry Tug... but the data is for whites and blacks in the US and that's where the discrepancy is. It could exist in other countries.

"These are authoritarian socialist regimes."

China is about the same as the US and they have a lot more rural people. Explain the difference between the US and Sweden? The number is about half... are their doctors twice as good? or are the people just a lot healtier?

Subject Dropped

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

You're not being very clear. What do you mean by "the data is for whites and blacks"?

Can't explain yourself so you're bailing out?