Days

I obtained this book from somebody that had no business in giving it to me, or to any other. ** This is a confidential manual to train climate alarmists globally. It has already been translated to 27 languages. The manual is titled: Climate 101. Here are some of the hard instructions included: To demand trillions of dollars (euros) FIRST you have to scare people out of their wits. Don't even try to explain the complexities of Earth's atmosphere. Just say: CO2 will kill us all! Always project an aura of infallibility even though we don't really understand what is going on. Remember, #TheScienceIsSettled Of all alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions, always select the most expensive and least reliable. Always downplay the serious problems of humanity such as poverty, war and terrorism while insisting AGW is the priority. Never debate against an opponent that knows the science. On second thought, never debate with anybody. They'll cream you. Insist that...

Making energy more expensive whether by carbon taxes or otherwise is not a good idea. Let's analize how, for example, food has energy inputs (mostly fossil fuel based) through all its processes: Planting is usually heavily mechanized plus fertilizers are mainly produced from fossil fuels. Harvesting is usually heavily mechanized also. Transportation requires oil powered ships and / or diesel powered trucks. Preparation / cooking / freezing / refrigeration is mostly fossil fuel powered. Even buying the food usually requires people driving to the supermarket (or home delivery) and then what is left needs heating and refrigeration. Thus, increasing the cost of energy would almost certainly have a significant impact on the price of food. And sure, the poorer somebody is, the larger portion of his income has to be spent in buying food. So, to those governments that want to impose a carbon tax we say: thanks, but no thanks. Don't play with the basic needs ...

We hear a lot about the desirability of going 100% renewable energy (mostly solar & wind). But before we get overly excited by this vision, let's underline some practical considerations. Solar panels & wind turbines are low density energy converters and thus vast mining operations would be required to produce a significant amount of our electricity. Since the lifetime of the above devices is not that long (a few decades at the most) these mining operations would have to exist in perpetuity (even if some recycling takes place).  Additionally, let's underline that electricity is only a fraction of world's total energy consumption and renewables usually only replace other sources of electricity generation. Here we can see global energy consumption (IEA 2016 report): China is the #1 producer of solar panels & wind turbines so massive tonnage would need to be transported across the world (ships, trucks) and again, these shipping operations would ne...

In my opinion, the reason fusion has produced no useful electricity after more than 65 years and billions upon billions of dollars / euros invested is that there is no sense of urgency with this technology. Fusion needs a General Groves or a very hard headed business leader that clearly sets the basic objective for fusion energy:      Produce electricity that is as reliable and cheaper than the one produced by fission reactors. The objective cannot be "achieve fusion energy breakeven." That will never take us anywhere. Then, they need a strict timeline, say: produce at least one megawatt of electrical power (which is really peanuts, but a beginning) with an annual capacity factor of at least 75% in a timeframe of five years. Then, upgrade power, and capacity factor to say, produce 100 megawatts of power in 5 more years (10 since "Groves" takes over) with an annual capacity factor of 85%. Additionally, cost needs to be an ALL important consideratio...

Consultants tend to over-rationalize what they see around them. For example, they visit a very successful company and then begin to think that company is successful thanks to to the way it does things. They tend not to consider that the studied company may be successful in spite of many of their practices and behaviors. The consultant then falls in love with their mental schemes and tries to preach these "success secrets" to other companies.  By the time others begin to listen to him, the original studied company is not very successful anymore and the consultant thus ends up preaching from a vacuum.  So, what makes a company successful in the first place? Let's start by underlining that luck plays a part. However, as Jim Collins states: luck exists but it cannot be a consistent strategy. Also, let's stress that companies are unique and what works on one might not work at all in another one. Thus there is not even such thing as a "great leader....

In the energy / climate discourse there is a lot of dumbing down being done and this is either plain dumb or even worse, arrogant. I am an unpaid nuclear energy promoter but it annoys me no end when other promoters label it as a "zero emissions" energy source. It is not. Dumbing down energy / climate conversations is disrespectful for your audience plus, we do NOT want to sound like Greenpeacers (all feelings and no facts). So, even nuclear promoters should probably clearly underline the following: There will be more nuclear power plant accidents. This is inevitable. The airline industry will NEVER state that there will not be more airplane disasters; we shouldn't either. Yes, in spite of past and future nuclear accidents nuclear energy will almost certainly continue to be the safest energy we have; bar none. This is equivalent to air travel: even though airplane accidents are more newsworthy, planes are by far safer than automobiles per mile travelled. Actuall...

Yesterday I was having a polite conversation with a climate alarmist and even though all through the interaction you could sense a feeling of superiority from the "settled science" promoter, at the end she stated this respecting energy: "I don't have a horse in the race." Well, if increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are really an issue, then we most definitely need a horse in the race. CO2 emissions won't go down just by "believing" in human caused global warming. No, where the rubber meets the road we'll have to replace high carbon intensity primary energy with lower carbon alternatives. Since hydro is pretty much maxxed out as a percentage of global primary energy and renewables need pairing power plants that end up producing most of the energy on an annual basis, we essentially have two options to reduce the CO2 intensity of primary energy: 1. Replace coal with natural gas. When used for electricity generation, natura...

Fusion was supposed to be the source of cheap electricity for humanity. Back in 1955, Homi Bhabha said: "I venture to predict that a method will be found for liberating fusion energy in a controlled manner within the next two decades. When that happens the energy problems of the world will truly have been solved forever." Well, after more than 60 years and billions upon billions of funds coming from Russia, the US, Europe, Japan and even Argentina, fusion has gone nowhere. Today, fusion doesn't even produce 1% of world's energy. Hey, it doesn't produce even 0.1%. It produces a big fat nothing. The Manhattan Project achieved its objectives in less than four years. The Apollo Program achieved its objectives in less than a decade. Fusion, on the other hand, continues burning billions of dollars (euros) every year and not one lousy power plant is still in operation. Why the fixation with fusion? Some are expecting a breakthrough at any moment, but the ...

There are some applications in which solar PV is the best energy source and, not surprisingly, in those applications it commands almost 100% of the market. One such application is powering satellites in geostationary orbit. At that altitude, on most days the capacity factor of the solar panels is close to 100%. That's right, this is not a mistake: close to 100%. Only near the equinoxes does that capacity factor drop but it still is sustained way above 90% on a daily basis. On the other hand, here on the surface of the Earth we have nights, clouds, and seasons and thus solar energy is intermittent and unreliable. One size does not fit all. For geostationary satellites NOTHING beats solar PV. Here on Earth, we have better options. Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Before tweeting against fossil fuels, please realize that the whole process is fossil fuel powered. The mining, smelting, refining of the metals and compounds required. The manufactory / assembly of most smartphones has a heavy China component and in that country coal rules in the primary energy supply. Shipping the smartphone to your country is usually done either in petrol powered ships or kerosene powered airplanes. And now, you have to power both your phone as well as the Twitter servers. Globally, coal is the #1 source of electricity and natural gas sits firmly at #2. Finally, the money you (or rather, your parents) needed to pay for your phone was earned with the support of fossil fuels. So, if you are anti-fossil fuels you'll probably be more consistent if you do not tweet at all. Thank you. Please follow us at @luisbaram

In my opinion, the arrogant behavior of many climate alarmists not only repels a lot of people, but may end up destroying the credibility they still have left. What would be a welcome change? Imagine an alarmist that spoke this way: Even though CO2 is a greenhouse gas and in theory higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere would tend to increase global temperatures, in reality climate science is an amazingly complicated subject and thus we cannot reliably make projections of what will happen in the short or long term.  Yes, some of us think things could get really bad, but so far there is no compelling evidence either that the climate is getting more violent or that tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts and floods are getting more common globally. Neither is there evidence that agricultural production is suffering worldwide.  The most media hungry among us love to point to anecdotal weather happenings and even try to trigger fear in others but this is obviously n...

I have seen no evidence that, as some claim, the climate globally is becoming more extreme or violent, however if that were the case we would need to accelerate our use of energy and in particular of fossil fuels. Why? If the climate is getting hotter, then more air conditioner units will need to be manufactured and also we will need more reliable electricity to power them all. If the sea levels are rising, we would need widespread civil engineering projects to construct dikes, or otherwise prepare the coastal cities for this eventuality.  People all over would need to upgrade their houses to better resist wind and rain events. Income would need to rise and almost all jobs ultimately depend on fossil fuels. All of the above cannot be achieved with renewable energy, so it is self-defeating to use extreme weather as an argument to reduce fossil fuel use. If extreme weather is happening or is coming, we need to use much more energy. The green fringe shou...