Pointless Arguments


The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) discourse is getting more and more pointless by the day. The two camps are more entrenched than ever and the continuous heavy information bombardment serves no purpose.

By "the two camps" we mean, on the one side the warmists (together with the alarmists) and on the other the skeptics (together with the "deniers").

The first camp showers the second with models, anecdotes, all the latest weather news (no matter what happens, they insist it is caused by AGW), etc.

The second camp fights back with more comprehensive historical climate trends and satellite data. Interestingly, the warmists seem to be "satellite deniers."

The end result is that nobody moves an inch and thus all the efforts are wasted.

For the warmists, AGW has become a religion of sorts and the skeptics... well, are skeptics.

Can we all agree that there has to be a better way forward?

Here is a proposal: stop arguing about AGW for good and better focus on the "solutions."

Yes, the skeptics will defend that there is no problem to solve to begin with, but what if we tell them we have an affordable energy source that is dense, reliable, produces almost no pollution and can be located close to current electricity transmission lines?

And what if we tell the warmists the same as above PLUS underline that the mentioned source of energy ADDITIONALLY produces almost no CO2 emissions.


Right, that energy source is nuclear power. What is more exciting is that even better designs are already in the pipeline. 

Today, nuclear is the #2 low CO2 energy source in the planet (second only to hydro), but nuclear has more growth potential. 


Note of caution for the warmists: don't even try to pitch renewables as the "solution." The push back from the skeptics will be even harder than the push back against the concept of AGW, so this is definitively not the way forward.

Why aren't skeptics enthusiastic about renewables? Well, because they are skeptics. They don't take things at face value, they do the math and thus they know renewables are too weak (in other words, their energy density is too low), require loads of "material," are intermittent and unreliable and thus need a pairing fossil fuel power plant or storage. In other words, for a person with the right level of skepticism, they just don't make financial or even environmental sense.

Bottom line: let's stop our pointless arguments and join forces to aggressively ramp up the "solution" to AGW: nuclear power.

Thanks.

Feel free to join the conversation in Twitter.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more