Days

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...