Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

An EV will take 100,000 kms of use to pay back the emissions cost? Is this real??

View attachment 151822

No it isn't real.. It is, like almost every other piece of anti renewable energy garbage a load of absolute rubbish.

But hey lets not spoil a good rant shall we ?

So what is the story with Mark Mills ? I'll leave a link that examines the video Mark Mills produces that promulgates this rubbish but it is worth highlighting why this is being said.

So yes, the video is terrible. But I've also grown to think it's significant, and not just because it has found a huge audience on social media. The video signifies two things.

First: a decade ago, the same video would have been about why climate change either isn't happening or isn't a risk. The fact that this one isn't about climate change is a clear indication of how badly that fight has been lost by those who want us to keep using fossil fuels. We've seen record temperatures year after year, and all the things we expected to see have arrived with them: raging fires, massive storms, and droughts. Sure, a handful of people remain unconvinced, but that population has shrunk to the point where nobody pays them much attention.

Second: if the fight about the fact of climate change is over, it has also grown increasingly irrelevant. In the US, President Biden now promises four years of pushing for expanded renewable energy. And the economics are in place to drive renewable power regardless of policy or the environment—which explains why red-state Iowa generates 41 percent of its electricity from wind power. In many areas of the country, wind power is now cheaper than the fuel for a natural gas plant. A zero-emissions grid is now relatively cheap. As a result, 80 percent of the power added to the US grid this year will be emission-free.

The economics are now such that utilities in much of the US will install as much renewable power as their grid can manage while keeping the lights on, as it's now the cheapest way to get power—even if you already have more fossil fuel plants than you need.

And that's "the real world" that this video fails to see, a world where there's no good reason to continue using fossil fuels at the level we have been. So if you don't have good reasons to oppose renewables but still want to see fossil fuels expand, you go with whatever bad reasons you can come up with.


Which nicely explains this video.

Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy

What a terrible anti-renewable-power video reveals about the US energy market.

arstechnica.com

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | PragerU

Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs? Or do they come with too high a price? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the…

www.prageru.com

 

[Knobby22]

No it isn't real.. It is, like almost every other piece of anti renewable energy garbage a load of absolute rubbish.

But hey lets not spoil a good rant shall we ?

So what is the story with Mark Mills ? I'll leave a link that examines the video Mark Mills produces that promulgates this rubbish but it is worth highlighting why this is being said.

So yes, the video is terrible. But I've also grown to think it's significant, and not just because it has found a huge audience on social media. The video signifies two things.

First: a decade ago, the same video would have been about why climate change either isn't happening or isn't a risk. The fact that this one isn't about climate change is a clear indication of how badly that fight has been lost by those who want us to keep using fossil fuels. We've seen record temperatures year after year, and all the things we expected to see have arrived with them: raging fires, massive storms, and droughts. Sure, a handful of people remain unconvinced, but that population has shrunk to the point where nobody pays them much attention.

Second: if the fight about the fact of climate change is over, it has also grown increasingly irrelevant. In the US, President Biden now promises four years of pushing for expanded renewable energy. And the economics are in place to drive renewable power regardless of policy or the environment—which explains why red-state Iowa generates 41 percent of its electricity from wind power. In many areas of the country, wind power is now cheaper than the fuel for a natural gas plant. A zero-emissions grid is now relatively cheap. As a result, 80 percent of the power added to the US grid this year will be emission-free.

The economics are now such that utilities in much of the US will install as much renewable power as their grid can manage while keeping the lights on, as it's now the cheapest way to get power—even if you already have more fossil fuel plants than you need.

And that's "the real world" that this video fails to see, a world where there's no good reason to continue using fossil fuels at the level we have been. So if you don't have good reasons to oppose renewables but still want to see fossil fuels expand, you go with whatever bad reasons you can come up with.


Which nicely explains this video.

Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy

What a terrible anti-renewable-power video reveals about the US energy market.

arstechnica.com

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | PragerU

Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs? Or do they come with too high a price? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the…

www.prageru.com

It's fascinating. Texas uses more energy per capita than any other state but has really gone for renewables. 37% and rising quickly. Gas usage which comes from there has now dropped below renewables. Just shows if you have the climate.
Australia is behind the times.

At other places in cold climates like Minneapolis and Germany they struggle. (Need nuclear).

Texas will get more electricity from solar and wind power than natural gas next year, EIA projects

Texas will get more electricity from solar and wind power than natural gas next year, EIA projects

news.yahoo.com

 

[basilio]

I found a more detailed analysis by Mark Mills on the challenges of producing battery packs that don't result in very large environmental and energy issues. It appears convincing but from my observations the movement to make batteries cheaper and more environmentally benign is going much faster than he acknowledges .

For example he says that mining companies are not likely to move to renewable electric power for many years. Yet FMG is determined to achieve that goal within 7 years in a huge mining operation. Other mining companies are looking to follow essentially because it makes strong economic sense to electrify their operations. Much of the technology is sorted and there is excellent work being undertaken to refine the final pieces .

Similarly he sees little likelihood of effectively recycling LiOn batteries in medium term. Yet NMT has developed a technology in a pilot plant and is looking to prove its effectiveness on commercial scale within 6 months.

https://techcrunch.com › 2021 › 08 › 22 › the-tough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs

The tough calculus of emissions and the future of EVs​

 

[basilio]

Dealing with mountains of solar panels.

Scientists source silicon from solar waste to build better batteries​

Researchers from Victoria’s Deakin University say they have successfully tested a new process that can safely and effectively extract silicon from end-of-life solar panels, then convert it into a nano material worth more than $45,000 (USD 31,500) per kilogram that can be used to build better batteries.
January 26, 2023 David Carroll

• Research
• Technology
• Technology and R&D
• Australia
• Victoria

Deakin University researchers Akhil Nelson, Dr Mokhlesur Rahman and Professor Ian Chen have developed a process to extract silicon from end-of-life solar panels.
Image: Deakin University

Share​

Scientists from Deakin University’s Institute for Frontier Materials (IFM) have developed what they say is a sustainable method to extract silicon from solar panel waste and reconfigure it into nano-silicon which is then used to make high-energy anodes for lithium-ion batteries.

Silicon makes up a relatively small proportion of a solar panel cell and until now it has been difficult to extract that silicon and reduce it down to its nano particles without using hazardous chemicals like hydrochloric acid and nitric acid.

Material scientists Mokhlesur Rahman and Ying Chen, director of the ARC Research Hub for Safe and Reliable Energy, which is based at the IFM in Geelong, said they have developed a thermal and chemical process to extract the silicon from solar waste that is cheap, effective and safe for the environment.

The process then takes the purified silicon and reduces its size to nanoscale using a ball-milling process. Again, without the need for toxic chemicals.

The nano-silicon is then mixed with graphite to create a battery anode that the researchers said has been shown to increase lithium-ion battery capacity by a factor of 10.

“We are using that nano-silicon to develop low-cost battery materials that will help deliver the higher-performing, longer-lasting, affordable battery technology critically needed to drive Australia’s clean energy transition,” Rahman said.

Scientists source silicon from solar waste to build better batteries

Researchers from Victoria’s Deakin University say they have successfully tested a new process that can safely and effectively extract silicon from end-of-life solar panels, then convert it into a nano material worth more than $45,000 (USD 31,500) per kilogram that can be used to build better...

www.pv-magazine-australia.com

 

[Sean K]

No it isn't real.. It is, like almost every other piece of anti renewable energy garbage a load of absolute rubbish.

But hey lets not spoil a good rant shall we ?

So what is the story with Mark Mills ? I'll leave a link that examines the video Mark Mills produces that promulgates this rubbish but it is worth highlighting why this is being said.

So yes, the video is terrible. But I've also grown to think it's significant, and not just because it has found a huge audience on social media. The video signifies two things.

First: a decade ago, the same video would have been about why climate change either isn't happening or isn't a risk. The fact that this one isn't about climate change is a clear indication of how badly that fight has been lost by those who want us to keep using fossil fuels. We've seen record temperatures year after year, and all the things we expected to see have arrived with them: raging fires, massive storms, and droughts. Sure, a handful of people remain unconvinced, but that population has shrunk to the point where nobody pays them much attention.

Second: if the fight about the fact of climate change is over, it has also grown increasingly irrelevant. In the US, President Biden now promises four years of pushing for expanded renewable energy. And the economics are in place to drive renewable power regardless of policy or the environment—which explains why red-state Iowa generates 41 percent of its electricity from wind power. In many areas of the country, wind power is now cheaper than the fuel for a natural gas plant. A zero-emissions grid is now relatively cheap. As a result, 80 percent of the power added to the US grid this year will be emission-free.

The economics are now such that utilities in much of the US will install as much renewable power as their grid can manage while keeping the lights on, as it's now the cheapest way to get power—even if you already have more fossil fuel plants than you need.

And that's "the real world" that this video fails to see, a world where there's no good reason to continue using fossil fuels at the level we have been. So if you don't have good reasons to oppose renewables but still want to see fossil fuels expand, you go with whatever bad reasons you can come up with.


Which nicely explains this video.

Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy

What a terrible anti-renewable-power video reveals about the US energy market.

arstechnica.com

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | PragerU

Are wind, solar, and batteries the magical solutions to all our energy needs? Or do they come with too high a price? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the…

www.prageru.com

In relation to the point.

The statement in the article about 100ks of travel was not made by Mills, but it’s sort of related to the argument anyway.

That is: the CO2 cost of building, maintaining and disposing of RE compared to the long term emissions reductions advantage compared to the FF status quo.

I think the biologist who critiqued his argument was on the mark and agreed with quite a lot of what he said, but only differed by degrees in a lot of cases.

Climate catastrophists could argue a better case by outlining exactly how many kilograms of CO2 an EV costs to build, maintain and dispose of, compared to an ICE vehicle. What’s the CO2 difference?

I know it will be more because ICE burns gas, but how much over time?

Don‘t forget that EVs recharge on a grid that is powered by FF.

Yes, we will eventually get to a net zero grid if daydream battery, hydrogen, pumped hydro, or nuclear (NIMBY) are introduced world wide in the next 100 years, but in the next decade, before the World is due to explode, calculating how much CO2 we‘re actually going to save with an EV is important.

 

[IFocus]

In relation to the point.

The statement in the article about 100ks of travel was not made by Mills, but it’s sort of related to the argument anyway.

That is: the CO2 cost of building, maintaining and disposing of RE compared to the long term emissions reductions advantage compared to the FF status quo.

I think the biologist who critiqued his argument was on the mark and agreed with quite a lot of what he said, but only differed by degrees in a lot of cases.

Climate catastrophists could argue a better case by outlining exactly how many kilograms of CO2 an EV costs to build, maintain and dispose of, compared to an ICE vehicle. What’s the CO2 difference?

I know it will be more because ICE burns gas, but how much over time?

Don‘t forget that EVs recharge on a grid that is powered by FF.

Yes, we will eventually get to a net zero grid if daydream battery, hydrogen, pumped hydro, or nuclear (NIMBY) are introduced world wide in the next 100 years, but in the next decade, before the World is due to explode, calculating how much CO2 we‘re actually going to save with an EV is important.

Unfortunately 1.5 degrees C is coming soon (did you see the AI prediction 70% likelihood?) which means over shooting 2 degrees C by a long way sooner which is really no surprise so splitting hairs is really quite pointless IMHO.

 

[rederob]

Climate catastrophists could argue a better case by outlining exactly how many kilograms of CO2 an EV costs to build, maintain and dispose of, compared to an ICE vehicle. What’s the CO2 difference?

Only climate science deniers use terms like "climate catastrophists." And most will not have done enough reading to work out that this issue was settled many years ago in favour of the RE transition. For EVs, by way of example, even using old data the USA's EPA fact checker states:

"..., research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car."​

There is no exact figure on the EV advantage because country by country comparisons of electricity source can differ markedly, especially in the EU, as shown:

Don‘t forget that EVs recharge on a grid that is powered by FF.

This old chestnut keeps getting trotted out, but even in China only 2/3rds of the grid relies on FF.
On the other hand, my rooftop solar powers my EV, so well-to-wheel is zero CO2. I certainly have not met every EV owner in Australia, but of the dozens I have at EV launches, everyone had rooftop solar.

Yes, we will eventually get to a net zero grid if daydream battery, hydrogen, pumped hydro, or nuclear (NIMBY) are introduced world wide in the next 100 years, but in the next decade, before the World is due to explode, calculating how much CO2 we‘re actually going to save with an EV is important.

FF-based electricity generation is already more expensive than all the forms of utility scale renewables in the majority of cases around the world, so the only constraint on a net zero grid will be the time it takes to install required capacity. The issue of needing to "calculate" CO2 saved by driving EVs in the next decade is somewhat meaningless to climate change as it is affected by total CO2 emitted, and to date there is nothing suggesting a global decline is possible:

Quoting from Mark Mills is as futile as using Richard Lindzen (OP of this thread) in terms of credibility. In the vernacular Mills is a troglodyte. Just 3 years ago, amongst many other poorly based claims, he wrote this about America's capacity:

"There’s no prospect of creating a domestic EV supply chain anytime soon, regardless of incentives."​

Given that Tesla has created the most profitable US car company, is vertically integrated, did this without federal incentives, and now makes several of the most popular sedans globally (including ICEVs), Mills could not be more wrong.

 

[Sean K]

Unfortunately 1.5 degrees C is coming soon (did you see the AI prediction 70% likelihood?) which means over shooting 2 degrees C by a long way sooner which is really no surprise so splitting hairs is really quite pointless IMHO.

I agree, very soon, and what we do now doesn’t seem to matter because China and India are going to replace our emissions and much much more well past the 2050s and the many tipping points we’ve been told exist by the science. If it was actually that important why aren’t we going to war against China, India and Indonesia to stop them building the hundreds of new coal fired power plants that are going to destroy the planet? It doesn’t matter that the West got themselves out of poverty with the industrial revolution through FF in the past, we didn’t really know CO2 was going to kill us all until Al Gore made a documentary. Now that we do know, the developing World must stay in poverty until RE works or we all die.

 

[Sean K]

Only climate science deniers use terms like "climate catastrophists." And most will not have done enough reading to work out that this issue was settled many years ago in favour of the RE transition. For EVs, by way of example, even using old data the USA's EPA fact checker states:

"..., research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car."​

There is no exact figure on the EV advantage because country by country comparisons of electricity source can differ markedly, especially in the EU, as shown:
View attachment 152479

This old chestnut keeps getting trotted out, but even in China only 2/3rds of the grid relies on FF.
On the other hand, my rooftop solar powers my EV, so well-to-wheel is zero CO2. I certainly have not met every EV owner in Australia, but of the dozens I have at EV launches, everyone had rooftop solar.


FF-based electricity generation is already more expensive than all the forms of utility scale renewables in the majority of cases around the world, so the only constraint on a net zero grid will be the time it takes to install required capacity. The issue of needing to "calculate" CO2 saved by driving EVs in the next decade is somewhat meaningless to climate change as it is affected by total CO2 emitted, and to date there is nothing suggesting a global decline is possible:View attachment 152480
Quoting from Mark Mills is as futile as using Richard Lindzen (OP of this thread) in terms of credibility. In the vernacular Mills is a troglodyte. Just 3 years ago, amongst many other poorly based claims, he wrote this about America's capacity:

"There’s no prospect of creating a domestic EV supply chain anytime soon, regardless of incentives."​

Given that Tesla has created the most profitable US car company, is vertically integrated, did this without federal incentives, and now makes several of the most popular sedans globally (including ICEVs), Mills could not be more wrong.

I didn’t quote Mills, I didn’t say CO2 wasn’t going up, I don’t deny the temperature is rising, I agree China gets the vast majority of its energy from FF, I will no longer use the term climate catastrophists and change it to climate clowns.

 

[IFocus]

I agree, very soon, and what we do now doesn’t seem to matter because China and India are going to replace our emissions and much much more well past the 2050s and the many tipping points we’ve been told exist by the science. If it was actually that important why aren’t we going to war against China, India and Indonesia to stop them building the hundreds of new coal fired power plants that are going to destroy the planet? It doesn’t matter that the West got themselves out of poverty with the industrial revolution through FF in the past, we didn’t really know CO2 was going to kill us all until Al Gore made a documentary. Now that we do know, the developing World must stay in poverty until RE works or we all die.

Politics and donors to politics killed any hope of a rapid resolution.

In the 80's the US Republicans broke from a bi-partisan position to actively work against sorting out CC.

Not hard to join the dots what drove their position given the vested interests in not moving to renewables at the time.

 

[basilio]

I agree, very soon, and what we do now doesn’t seem to matter because China and India are going to replace our emissions and much much more well past the 2050s and the many tipping points we’ve been told exist by the science. If it was actually that important why aren’t we going to war against China, India and Indonesia to stop them building the hundreds of new coal fired power plants that are going to destroy the planet? It doesn’t matter that the West got themselves out of poverty with the industrial revolution through FF in the past, we didn’t really know CO2 was going to kill us all until Al Gore made a documentary. Now that we do know, the developing World must stay in poverty until RE works or we all die.

Stirring the pot are we Sean ? Sounds as if you have jumped from "No, No No No CC is not going to happen" to "Ah well its all to late . And anyway its going to be India and China and Indonesia (and anyone else's ) fault that we cook ( but who who actually believes we'll cook anyway .? )

But a couple of corrections.

1) Nap it wasn't Al Gore's documentary "that told us CO2 would kill us". The reality of CO2 warming the globe and the consequences that would follow was well established by climate scientists in the late 1980's.

2) Yes FF was the driver for Western countries industrial revolution. But times and technology have changed haven't they? In 2023 renewable energy sources are just so much cheaper and cleaner than FF that only the reps from Big Oil and their supporters would claim their technology was the best way out of poverty. It just isn't true. End of story.

I can understand the engineering rationalists saying that moving to a totally renewable society is 20-30 years is hopelessly unrealistic. It is a huge, huge ask. But lets remember who were the actors who have put the world in this position.

By 1989 Climate scientists were warning everyone that unless we decarbonised our economies the inevitable consequences of CO2 driven global warming would follow. The data was in. If in 1990 the world had embarked on a 50 year program to steadily replace FF with renewable energy in 2023 we would be well on the way to a kinder future than we face.

Who stopped this change of direction ? Mark Mills for a start and the FF industry he so strongly supports. Did you notice that he never mentions global warming anywhere ? And what has happened since 1990 on the global warming/CO2 front.

 

[Sean K]

Stirring the pot are we Sean ? Sounds as if you have jumped from "No, No No No CC is not going to happen" to "Ah well its all to late . And anyway its going to be India and China and Indonesia (and anyone else's ) fault that we cook ( but who who actually believes we'll cook anyway .? )

But a couple of corrections.

1) Nap it wasn't Al Gore's documentary "that told us CO2 would kill us". The reality of CO2 warming the globe and the consequences that would follow was well established by climate scientists in the late 1980's.

2) Yes FF was the driver for Western countries industrial revolution. But times and technology have changed haven't they? In 2023 renewable energy sources are just so much cheaper and cleaner than FF that only the reps from Big Oil and their supporters would claim their technology was the best way out of poverty. It just isn't true. End of story.

I can understand the engineering rationalists saying that moving to a totally renewable society is 20-30 years is hopelessly unrealistic. It is a huge, huge ask. But lets remember who were the actors who have put the world in this position.

By 1989 Climate scientists were warning everyone that unless we decarbonised our economies the inevitable consequences of CO2 driven global warming would follow. The data was in. If in 1990 the world had embarked on a 50 year program to steadily replace FF with renewable energy in 2023 we would be well on the way to a kinder future than we face.

Who stopped this change of direction ? Mark Mills for a start and the FF industry he so strongly supports. Did you notice that he never mentions global warming anywhere ? And what has happened since 1990 on the global warming/CO2 front.

View attachment 152484

Agree, scientists were saying CO2 was a problem a long time ago. Scientists also wrote to the US President in the 70s saying we were entering a new ice age. Al Gore made the general public more aware with his exaggerated (false) hockey stick. Greta has made waves by taking Friday off school. Both very good climate scientists and ultimate hypocrites.

I’ve never said the Earth wasn’t warming, but I do question the catastrophic predictions and our response. Al Gore saying the oceans were going to *boil* at Davos and #BlackOutBowen not even entertaining nuclear because it’s expensive is so dumb it’s mind blowing.

 

[Belli]

I've posted this previously but may as well post it again. The connection between carbon and climate was established in the 1800's.

Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote

The results of Foote’s simple experiments were confirmed through hundreds of tests by scientists in the US and Europe. It happened more than a century ago.

theconversation.com

 

[basilio]

I’ve never said the Earth wasn’t warming, but I do question the catastrophic predictions and our response

Ok I'm curious. How long do you think the earth will continue to warm ? Just roughly ? What do you think will happen to ecosystems on earth if temperatures increase by another 1C average (the amount that has occured since 1990) .

 

[Sean K]

Ok I'm curious. How long do you think the earth will continue to warm ? Just roughly ? What do you think will happen to ecosystems on earth if temperatures increase by another 1C average (the amount that has occured since 1990) .

Potentially till the end of the Holocene and then it will dramatically cool into the next inevitable ice age which is due in the next thousand years or so.

I have very low confidence in any predictions by the IPCC on what happens with another 1 degree temp rise. The GBR is supposed to be dead but I’ve been diving there for 30 years and it’s in the best shape I’ve seen. I’ve been in the Maldives for the past week and they are still there although it was predicted 30 years ago that they would be underwater. Does this look underwater?

 

[Knobby22]

Potentially till the end of the Holocene and then it will dramatically cool into the next inevitable ice age which is due in the next thousand years or so.

I have very low confidence in any predictions by the IPCC on what happens with another 1 degree temp rise. The GBR is supposed to be dead but I’ve been diving there for 30 years and it’s in the best shape I’ve seen. I’ve been in the Maldives for the past week and they are still there although it was predicted 30 years ago that they would be underwater. Does this look underwater?

View attachment 152498

I hope you aren't very old. I want you to witness the future.

 

[Sean K]

I hope you aren't very old. I want you to witness the future.

I’m expecting to last till the end of the Holocene. If I get to see the oceans boil, or ‘end of snow’ great.

 

[wayneL]

Wr

I hope you aren't very old. I want you to witness the future.

Wrong thread, this belongs in mass formation psychosis

 

[Knobby22]

Wr
Wrong thread, this belongs in mass formation psychosis

I am glad you are healthy ?

 

[Sean K]

Wr
Wrong thread, this belongs in mass formation psychosis

The sad thing is children are being brainwashed at school at this very moment that the end of the World is imminent. Not in 50-100 years, but by 2030. My nieces and nephews between 8-16 are panicking because they literally think they will die very soon from CC. Exactly how they don’t know but it’s very real to them. It’s child abuse.