Michael Shellenberger, founder of the organization Environmental Progress, and one of the driving forces behind the move to renewables over the last couple of decades, concludes his op-ed at Quillette on why and how renewables have failed to achieve their objectives with this:
I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from an appeal-to-nature fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.†But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.
Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?
His article consists of a bill of particulars on the shortcomings of renewables. I’ll add one: in moving towards compressed wood pellets for home heating the Germans have actually increased carbon emissions. Compressed wood pellets are only zero net emissions if you don’t cut down old growth trees to produce them but that’s exactly what has happened. Oops.
His basic message is, if you want to save the planet, go nuke.
There is nothing inherently wrong with renewables, efficiency etc. Unless you decide that it is inextricably intertwined with irrationality.
There are many pellet examples. If it feels good, do it, even if its not environmentally warranted. Irrational. It comes with zealotry.
Interesting piece published recently. Last 40 years of satellite temp data. Last 40 years of CO2 concentration in atmosphere. One slopes up. One is flat. Guess. If a theory has a predictability variable that doesn’t predict……………its not a theory.
The plot showing no change in “global temperatures” looked only at the lower 48 states. I suspect you can figure out what percentage of the earth that covers. It also looks only at lower atmosphere numbers. Dare we note that someone talking about global changes is looking at only a small percentage of the planet?
https://climatechangedispatch.com/climategate-global-warming-life-support/
Back on topic, I think that this guy represents what most of the people who seriously cover the topic believe. Renewables may or may not eventually cover all of our needs, but even if they do it is way off in the future and we will need other ways to provide power until then. The advances have been pretty dramatic, but they arent going to be enough in 20-30 years.
Steve
Look at US only, unless a miracle occurs, the amount of electricity produced by nuclear will decline in the next 20 years. All bar 3 nuclear plants are more than 30 years old, and they are only designed for 40-60 year lifespans.
Which is one of the reasons it’s a matter of some urgency.
We presently have about 150-200 small scale nukes (on ships and submarines). It’s an old technology. Factory-producing them is a new technology. The company most mentioned is NuScale. Opposition to nuclear is impeding deployment of testing in quantity.
The point here is that anyone serious about reducing carbon emissions should be promoting nuclear.
Might be a stupid comment, but if we really want to measure worldwide global temperature changes,why not look at the elevation of the atmosphere? (If that can be measured) It should expand and contract against the pull of gravity relative to it’s temperature.
Just a thought.
That’s not to say renewables don’t have their uses.
Like in developing countries with unreliable power, a portable solar panel to enable of a mobile phone, or a solar powered highway traffic monitoring device.
That is what the falling price of solar panels is great for.
It’s measured with a barometer, which doesn’t help. Conflating air pressure with volume.
A warmer atmosphere should expand significantly, may even show differences between day and night.
The price of solar panels is low because China is subsidizing their production and they’re subsidizing their production for the same reason any monopolist does: to drive competitors out of the market.
Besides temperatures scientists also look at the total heat content of the planet. They use satellites to measure the incoming and outgoing radiation. They also correlate this with calculations of total heat content.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=67
Steve