further evidence: Biden et al who are happy with approving many new fossil fuel project (production, pipelines, power plants, etc) in the US, increasing fossil fuel exports, but at the same time jump on their moral high horse to stop financing fossil fuel projects abroad....for climate reasons....
Todd, thanks for promoting climate and energy pragmatism!
This NYT Piece is a perfect example of the childish ideology that has Infected our global intelligencia: “wind and solar good - fossil fuels and nuclear bad!”
I am a volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby, promoting a carbon fee and refundable dividend as the best long-term solution to reduce CO2 emissions.
I’m incredibly frustrated by both political extremes - but I swear to God, the Green New Dealer Crusaders are the main obstacle to sensible energy policy, not the crusty old climate skeptics!
The Greens will not accept some cold, hard facts:
1. Net Zero 2050 goals are entirely unrealistic.
2. We are not in a renewable energy transition from fossil fuels - we are just beginning an electric grid transition from coal to gas and solar.
3. The hard part of decarbonization - cement, steel, plastics, and fertilizer will take generations as the technology does not exist to decarbonize 75-80% of the world economy
4. We will need to accept and adapt to more warming than we would have if CO2 reduction attempts were started sooner
5. Wind and solar can replace only so much of the firm electrical power generation before costs escalate exponentially.
6. Variable renewables will not power high heat heavy industry in the foreseeable future.
7. The developing world will not accept energy poverty to satisfy the dreams of the Western ruling elites.
I could go on…
My fellow Coloradan Chris Wright is a great pick for the DOE. This NYT hatchet job is painful to read.
TIL Nuclear power cannot easily and directly replace fossil fuels for cement, plastics, steel and fertilizer. Not just due to the energy needs but because fossil fuels provide other important elements to the reaction. Thanks for this. #3 above.
Almost two decades ago as I emerged from my lack of political involvement, my family would scold me to be more civil and accepting of my "liberal" friends and community members. They said I was too abrasive.
So, I set out to listen more and not speak my opposition to their ideas and opinions.
Over that time I learned that my original orientation was actually too accepting. I came to the realization that people identifying as liberal progressive are generally people that lack the capacity for rational trade-off analysis conclusions. They are people with dysfunctional psychology... where gaps in their psyche... their need to fill them... overwhelm acceptance of rational points.
These are people that are more at risk for ideological capture as they crave things to fill those gaps. They are not whole. They are developmentally incomplete.
And there are many of them... they flock together because being around people like them makes them feel more accepted.
But you cannot have a rational debate with them on topics like climate change (not rebranded by them as climate crisis).
They are prone to mass formation, adoption of mythology and hysteria. The only thing you can do is constantly humiliate them for their irrational behavior and talk, and to suggest therapy is needed before they come back to the conversation.
With respect to climate change, of course we need to discuss it from a perspective of trade-off analyses. The problem with engaging these people is that the only trade-off they care about is their own sense of personal ego and righteousness. They will never admit they are wrong about anything because it would result in a hit to their self-worth... which is already artificially propped up by their belief that they are The Elect... the righteous tribe.
I like the four points. I have been wondering if there is value in investigating the flip side of this approach - the fact is that attempts to build a global policy framework to tackle climate change have degenerated into lip service - and even that is fragile. We can debate why, and everyone has their favourite theory, but is it possible that the lack of a consensus is at least in part because of the perception in the Global South that the policy agenda is hijacked by the North or various special interests? And that therefore actively pursuing what is not only common sense but actually a fairer approach could build consensus? I realise this is soft and intangible (or let's call it qualitative), but it would be interesting to know if anyone is working on it (the political economy of MEM versus status quo)??
Todd, stop making so much sense. I was having a perfectly fine day until you interrupted my peace with news that we are surrounded by hyperbolic, bombastic people.
Not sure I agree with “all of the above” energy policy. We almost had an existential event here in Alberta on Jan 13, sitting in the dark at -42 hoping the grid doesn’t crash. Almost did. Our 6gw of renewables, 40% of our installed capacity was zero, even if it was 60gw it would still be zero. Our prices have gone way up and commentators have been tracking the explosion in frequency events and grid emergencies.
So what is the point in all that expenditure? To feel good? I didn’t feel good having turn out the lights and cross my fingers.
All of the above shows we have already installed too much useless intermittent generation, but opposing more makes me a denier to the climate/insane.
So I support Premier Smith in her efforts to regulate it out of existence, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Robert Bryce has several posts on the iron law of energy density, I highly recommend it. Anyone who can do math would never support wind and solar.
100 % agreement with this essence of this post, but not with it failure to cash out what "nuance" means in practice. It means that every decision to oxidize a carbon atom and emit a molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere should take account of the cost imposed on others of that emission. And how does that happen? By each country levying an excise tax on the first sale of carbon containing fuels in proportion to the carbon content. Are there other things that will help pending levying these taxes? Yes and we should charge ahead with those that closely mimic the effects of the tax, but keep our eyes on the ultimate objective, dealing with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at as low a cost as possible.
The purpose of an energy system is to enable human flourishing.
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Well said.
further evidence: Biden et al who are happy with approving many new fossil fuel project (production, pipelines, power plants, etc) in the US, increasing fossil fuel exports, but at the same time jump on their moral high horse to stop financing fossil fuel projects abroad....for climate reasons....
Explain that to people in Africa.
https://grist.org/politics/biden-oecd-fossil-fuel-financing-export-import-bank/
Well said Todd!
Todd, thanks for promoting climate and energy pragmatism!
This NYT Piece is a perfect example of the childish ideology that has Infected our global intelligencia: “wind and solar good - fossil fuels and nuclear bad!”
I am a volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby, promoting a carbon fee and refundable dividend as the best long-term solution to reduce CO2 emissions.
I’m incredibly frustrated by both political extremes - but I swear to God, the Green New Dealer Crusaders are the main obstacle to sensible energy policy, not the crusty old climate skeptics!
The Greens will not accept some cold, hard facts:
1. Net Zero 2050 goals are entirely unrealistic.
2. We are not in a renewable energy transition from fossil fuels - we are just beginning an electric grid transition from coal to gas and solar.
3. The hard part of decarbonization - cement, steel, plastics, and fertilizer will take generations as the technology does not exist to decarbonize 75-80% of the world economy
4. We will need to accept and adapt to more warming than we would have if CO2 reduction attempts were started sooner
5. Wind and solar can replace only so much of the firm electrical power generation before costs escalate exponentially.
6. Variable renewables will not power high heat heavy industry in the foreseeable future.
7. The developing world will not accept energy poverty to satisfy the dreams of the Western ruling elites.
I could go on…
My fellow Coloradan Chris Wright is a great pick for the DOE. This NYT hatchet job is painful to read.
I’ll keep in touch!
TIL Nuclear power cannot easily and directly replace fossil fuels for cement, plastics, steel and fertilizer. Not just due to the energy needs but because fossil fuels provide other important elements to the reaction. Thanks for this. #3 above.
Kyle, Do you have a quick reference as to the issues with nuclear power replacing FF for the “4 Pillars”?
And I suppose this means solar/wind/geothermal/hydro can't replace fossil fuels for the big 4 either.
no sir. You're the one that just informed me :-)
Seems that less than 20% of GHG comes from the cement, fertilizer, plastic and steel https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
Maybe we can add aviation to the list of things that can't be easily replaced by nuclear power.
Wind, solar, and batteries are not less expensive, and they come with their own eco-problems.
A free market energy policy is the middle ground, with climate alarmism tempered and the adaptation process at work.
"The case for the pragmatic middle"
Almost two decades ago as I emerged from my lack of political involvement, my family would scold me to be more civil and accepting of my "liberal" friends and community members. They said I was too abrasive.
So, I set out to listen more and not speak my opposition to their ideas and opinions.
Over that time I learned that my original orientation was actually too accepting. I came to the realization that people identifying as liberal progressive are generally people that lack the capacity for rational trade-off analysis conclusions. They are people with dysfunctional psychology... where gaps in their psyche... their need to fill them... overwhelm acceptance of rational points.
These are people that are more at risk for ideological capture as they crave things to fill those gaps. They are not whole. They are developmentally incomplete.
And there are many of them... they flock together because being around people like them makes them feel more accepted.
But you cannot have a rational debate with them on topics like climate change (not rebranded by them as climate crisis).
They are prone to mass formation, adoption of mythology and hysteria. The only thing you can do is constantly humiliate them for their irrational behavior and talk, and to suggest therapy is needed before they come back to the conversation.
With respect to climate change, of course we need to discuss it from a perspective of trade-off analyses. The problem with engaging these people is that the only trade-off they care about is their own sense of personal ego and righteousness. They will never admit they are wrong about anything because it would result in a hit to their self-worth... which is already artificially propped up by their belief that they are The Elect... the righteous tribe.
I like the four points. I have been wondering if there is value in investigating the flip side of this approach - the fact is that attempts to build a global policy framework to tackle climate change have degenerated into lip service - and even that is fragile. We can debate why, and everyone has their favourite theory, but is it possible that the lack of a consensus is at least in part because of the perception in the Global South that the policy agenda is hijacked by the North or various special interests? And that therefore actively pursuing what is not only common sense but actually a fairer approach could build consensus? I realise this is soft and intangible (or let's call it qualitative), but it would be interesting to know if anyone is working on it (the political economy of MEM versus status quo)??
I see a lot of people demanding that we not be forced to use ONLY solar or wind power.
I see a lot of people demanding that we use ONLY solar or wind power:
Dams are bad.
Nuclear is bad.
Oil and gas are going to kill everyone in X years where X is a small number.
You're wanting a nuanced discussion, but it's the climate hysterics that need nuance.
Todd, stop making so much sense. I was having a perfectly fine day until you interrupted my peace with news that we are surrounded by hyperbolic, bombastic people.
Not sure I agree with “all of the above” energy policy. We almost had an existential event here in Alberta on Jan 13, sitting in the dark at -42 hoping the grid doesn’t crash. Almost did. Our 6gw of renewables, 40% of our installed capacity was zero, even if it was 60gw it would still be zero. Our prices have gone way up and commentators have been tracking the explosion in frequency events and grid emergencies.
So what is the point in all that expenditure? To feel good? I didn’t feel good having turn out the lights and cross my fingers.
All of the above shows we have already installed too much useless intermittent generation, but opposing more makes me a denier to the climate/insane.
So I support Premier Smith in her efforts to regulate it out of existence, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Robert Bryce has several posts on the iron law of energy density, I highly recommend it. Anyone who can do math would never support wind and solar.
90% agree with you but for off grid people, esp near the equator solar is great. More convenient and quieter than running a generator.
100 % agreement with this essence of this post, but not with it failure to cash out what "nuance" means in practice. It means that every decision to oxidize a carbon atom and emit a molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere should take account of the cost imposed on others of that emission. And how does that happen? By each country levying an excise tax on the first sale of carbon containing fuels in proportion to the carbon content. Are there other things that will help pending levying these taxes? Yes and we should charge ahead with those that closely mimic the effects of the tax, but keep our eyes on the ultimate objective, dealing with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at as low a cost as possible.
out of curiosity, why do you want to keep co2 accumulation low?
Could you please be more analytically rigorous, and lay off the cherry picking.
You're setting a bad example for the New York Times.