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...