Days

  In Twitter we can only state things briefly, so, let's dive a little bit deeper concerning the global energy supply. We won't discuss climate here since it rapidly turns into a quagmire. However, for the sake of argument , let's say reducing the CO2 intensity of our world energy supply is a worthwhile objective. First, let's see where we stand today.  This is our global primary energy supply: And then, even though electricity currently represents less than 20% of world final energy consumption, this is how electricity generation by source looks today: Due to the fact that it is easier to replace fossil fuels in electricity generation than in primary energy overall, most of the energy discussions we listen to focus on electricity to the point that many persons confuse "electricity" with total primary energy. As we can see above, they are very different things. For example, in spite of oil barely being used for generating electricity it is comfortably the numb...

Feelings dominate the climate discourse and reason is not welcomed in world climate conferences. Imagine if reason were allowed equal time. Imagine what a 16 year old girl that was not manipulated by the green fringe could say if she addressed one of those climate conferences.  Hello, I'm Agnes. I'm 16 years old. I'm glad to have the opportunity to address this conference. (clapping). I'm not known for being particularly sweet, so brace yourselves for what I have to say. (chuckles).  I'm not naive, and I have made my homework before addressing you here tonight, so bear with me. (some concern). Let's stop being stupid. Prematurely reducing our fossil fuel consumption would swing back the clock, cause the starvation of billions and turn most of the survivors into paupers including almost everybody in my generation. We cannot allow this to happen.  Let's stop wasting money and resources on so called "renewebles." They are just windo...

If, as some say, CO2 is or will become a problem*, we need to leave this molecule alone. Why? Because we are focusing on the "problem" not on the "solution." So, if we want to move to a low CO2 world economy there are two indispensable things we need to get serious about: 1. An accelerated global nuclear power plant buildup. There is NO WAY out of this. NO WAY. Believing we can move to a low CO2 world economy without nuclear shouldering most of the weight is extreme reality denial. 2. We would need to stop wasting money, resources, efforts and area on solar panels / wind turbines. In REAL life these so called "renewables" need to be paired with reliable power plants in perpetuity and these reliable power plants end up producing most of the energy on an annual basis. Plus, since those pairing power plants are mostly coal or natural gas powered "renewables" just lock-in the use of fossil fuels long term. Renewable energy promoters a...

It is amazing how some solar promoters out there talk about this technology as of the Second Coming. There is too much hype surrounding solar panels / wind turbines. Here a former solar energy promoter (myself) will present a balanced view of this technology without exaggerations and even dishonesty. Solar is ideally suited for remote off-grid installations. However, these applications tend to be low energy ones not suitable for running air conditioners or even microwave ovens. So, if you have a cottage in the middle of nowhere with little chance of soon connecting to the grid, solar is a good option whether by itself or combined with a gasoline generator. Use solar for the basics such as lightning and operating your electronic devices. In space, in the inner solar system solar is best. Even though the Juno mission (to Jupiter) uses solar panels to power the spacecraft this is already stretching things too much. In Earth orbit, nothing beats solar and that is the reason thi...

Renewable energy targets should not be set with the gut. If at all, they should be set after careful engineering / economic considerations have been studied. At the very least, the following factors need to be considered: Annual insolation patterns (for at least ten years). Annual wind patterns (for at least ten years). Annual electricity demand patterns (again, for at least ten years). Off the bat we know solar does not produce at night. So, does wind somewhat complement solar output or is its contribution mostly random (on an annual basis)? What types of pairing power plants will be used. Natural gas? Coal? Hydro? Nuclear? What will be the cost of the electricity produced by the panels / turbines considering the system, not only individual components? (Paring power plants need to be ramped up / down, idled, stopped, started and thus even though their fuel use drops, their fixed costs per kWh increase).  No conventional generating capacity may be retired ...

The question, "do you believe in climate change?" doesn't make a lot of sense. Many times it is used by "believers" to justify them labeling skeptics as "deniers." However, these are some of the reasons it doesn't make sense: Essentially everybody believes the climate is changing. It has always changed (for many millions of years) and there is no reason to believe it will ever stop changing (at least as long as the Earth hangs on to a significant atmosphere). So, the question should probably be framed differently: do you believe the additional CO2 that humans are pumping into the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels will change the climate? Even if this were the question, it can hardly be answered yes / no. If somebody answers "yes" what do they actually mean by that? Yes, imperceptibly. Yes, mildly. Yes, significantly. Yes, catastrophically. And yes, but it will IMPROVE the climate. So, we are back at square one. If the be...

A one GWe nuclear power plant operating at 85% capacity factor produces annually 7.45 TWh. Thus, some people believe that a solar PV farm producing this same amount of energy on an annual basis can replace the nuclear power plant.  This is not correct. Nuclear power plants for the most part operate 24/7 and thus produce reliable base load power you can count with. Solar PV farms produce continually varying output during the day and nothing at all during the night. Also, in most places there is significant variation in solar insolation throughout the year. And the lower levels might actually coincide with the times of year when the most electricity is needed. As an example, here we have the insolation data for Berlin, Germany: The variation between July and December is 10 to 1. Plus, Germany usually needs the most electricity in the dead of winter.  Thus, solar PV does not replace nuclear capacity (or any other capacity), it just displaces energy from re...

The CAGW discourse could be less contentious if climate alarmists tamed their arrogance. Here is some humble advice on how this could be achieved: 1. Accept, off the bat, that Earth's climate system is extremely complex and thus that neither you, nor anybody else fully understands it. 2. Don't try to frame EVERYTHING that happens as "consistent with what you would expect from a warming planet." This reduces your credibility or worse, makes you sound like a clown. 3. If your premise is that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are a serious problem then BEHAVE as if you believe this is true. You don't need to completely eliminate your fossil fuel use (an impossible feat for you as for anybody else) but at least engage in token actions such as eliminating all air travel. 4. This is a critical one. Again, if CO2 is a very serious issue, then you need to become a card carrying nuclear power advocate. And if you are already a closet nuclear sup...

If no further cost increases happen and everything works according to the plan, in a few years ITER will be able to produce 500 MW of heat (not electricity). This heat will just be released to the atmosphere without producing any useful electricity (ITER will not even have an electrical generator). This heat dump into the atmosphere is planned to take place during 2035 if no additional delays occur.  The input for producing this output is calculated to be 50 MW of heat. However, since the input heat will be produced with electricity, at a 40% efficiency for the generator it actually requires a thermal input of 50 / 0.40 = 125 MW of heat. So the net heat production of ITER should be 500 MW - 125 MW = 375 MW. If this heat were used to power an electrical generator (at say, 40% efficiency) its output would be 150 MW.  The cost of ITER, so far, is projected to be 20 billion euros, so per GWe of capacity it corresponds to 20 / 0.125 = 160 billion euros. And again, this ...

Most climate alarmists think reason and science are on their side and thus tend to have an arrogant attitude when dealing with climate skeptics. They get annoyed when skeptics call their alarmist beliefs CAGW. They fight back saying the "C" is a "denier" plot but then we ask, if AGW is not catastrophic, why should humanity spend (waste) tens of trillions of dollars to "fix" something that ultimately may not be bad (if it is even being caused by our CO2 emissions)?  Also, with a perfectly straight face many alarmists underline that "climate action" requires the replacement of fossil fuels wholesale by (mostly) solar panels and wind turbines. And yes, many of them confuse "energy" with "electricity." The latter is only a fraction of our civilization's total energy consumption.  Here is where their boat, as it were, begins to thread water. Fossil fuel generating capacity cannot be replaced by solar and wind. At ...

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