The real problem with the unreliables is not just a low EROEI but the dragged out and erratic profile of the energy delivery. Oil, coal and gas can be 100 % utilized as soon as they are available(100 % dispatchable and distributable) whereas wind and solar comes in dribs and drabs over 10 or 20 years before they break even on the original energy expended. They can never build themselves. On a net present value or time value basis they are a dead loss which is why they are and will always be uneconomic.
Unreliables do not deliver energy:
How it is needed – unpredictable and not 24/7/365. Solar is 10 to 20% and wind 15 to 23% – not dispatchable.
When it is needed – rarely during peak demand times during day or in winter
Where it is needed – not easily distributed plus has normal line losses with distance. Cannot be located where is is most needed.
Wind and solar do not deliver energy how, when, or where it is needed. They are not reliable, cheap, dispachable at peak need or 24/7/365 and cannot be located near high demand areas. So called green energy has to be paired with storage or full backup to be useful so it has too low of a EROEI to power modern society. The energy comes in dribs and drabs over the years so no renewable can build itself and can never be economic on a net present value or time value basis. We need to provide cheap abundant energy to everyone which will raise the standard of living which will also solve population growth fears.
Some people seem to think that electric cars will become popular enough that they will lower the demand for oil which ignores the logic trap – that cannot occur because it would mean that oil prices would be so low that electric cars would never have better economics than gasoline cars.
In a nonpolitical world, this Testimony by this prominent of an expert would be viewed by anyone who understands science as Checkmate, game-set-match, QED to the Climate Alarmist view of CO2 as a Climate Control Knob.
The GHG Theory and the Positive Feedback theory both manifest themselves ( in Climate Models) first as an increased temperature in the mid Troposphere which is the main layer measured by the balloon and satellite data sets.
None of the 4 balloon or 3 satellite data sets are measuring anything close to the predicted increases so the predicted “Climate Sensitivity ” to changes in CO2 is over estimated by several times. Carbon Dioxide has continued to rise and over a third of the total man made CO2 has been produced in the last 20 years and yet reality is that Temperatures have not risen as predicted. The empirical measurements say the theory is busted.
The surface temperature data sets show more warming but are also way below predictions despite the “hottest year ever” claims. The surface set is subject to UHI error , adjustments, estimates for large areas like the arctic and questionable handling of ocean data (70% of the area!).
It is also worthwhile to read the appendix as he shows how many of the claims about adverse effects of climate change are not happening. There is no increase in droughts, wildfires, crop losses and he could have included actual decreases in tornados and hurricanes and hurricane strength.
This has become such a stupid political football and is being used to justify expensive and damaging policies such as denying cheap fossil fuel energy to the third world which will continue to cost many lives.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh – wrong doomsday.
The Earth is warming! The Earth is warming! Oh – wrong doomsday. No amount of shrieking about the warmest year ever (only by hundredths of a degree and only on some Surface data sets) will offset the fact that the Model forecasts are too high by 50 to 150% despite large increases in CO2 in the last 25 years. The models track temperatures before 2000 because they have been matched to that data but forecasts based on high CO2 sensitivity are where the models over forecast temperature increases. Note that surface temperatures are estimated for as much as 60% of the world area versus measured and then adjusted which may be why surface data sets no longer reliably track the satellite temperatures. Climate Sensitivity and specifically positive feed backs to changes in CO2 content in the models appears to be way over estimated.
The climate is changing! The climate is changing! Oh – the climate has changed for billions of years. There have been hotter periods, worse storms, longer droughts, more hurricanes, higher CO2 levels and so on in history so this is all within the normal range of natural variation. The earth has warmed up since the little ice age and vast majority of glacier melting occurred long before man added enough CO2 to theoretically affect climate( the 1980’s). The warming from the positive half of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) from late 80’s to 2005 appears to have been mis-attributed to CO2.
The estimates of Sensitivity are continuously being adjusted down and most estimates are now below the so called safe limit of 2 C. What Crisis?
This hysterical nonsense is way over estimated and over hyped. Runaway warming is very unlikely and mild warming periods have always been good for humans.
Scary climate model forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C or higher depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite readings of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect because positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.
Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so it is now becoming apparent that the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob. There are new peer reviewed papers that have been published since the IPCC AR5 that have dramatically reduced the climate sensitivity to less than 1.5 degrees C.
Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate. The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!
The world has been constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man is “to blame” for some of that warming. Let us breakdown that politically worded message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization (UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2 but how much of the temperature rise is natural? Science is not about belief but about the scientific method where theories are proposed, facts are collected and theories are tested. Scientists should not jump to conclusions and have to be open to changing their minds if the theories fail.
Now that the climate model forecasts are shown to be overestimating the warming and that climate sensitivity estimates have to be reduced, the real question is how many scientists would be willing ”to stake their lives”(interesting phrase!) on the possibility that CO2 levels will cause enough warming to cause problems. Mild warming has historically been good for the planet and humanity.
Strongly held religious and political beliefs have caused and continue to cause wars, genocides and atrocities. That is why most of the world has tried to separate the powers of the government, the church and the military because sometimes those beliefs are wrong. A Canadian example is the combination of religion, politics and social science with great intentions created the residential school system.
Do you not find it ironic that someone with a theology degree would call for people with different “belief” to be burned at the stake (sorry – suffer consequences). Skeptical scientists are people who are still trying to determine the correct answer using the scientific method.
Terms like “Denial and Denier” are political/religious terms and have no place in a science discussion. We should immediately distrust anyone using terms like that because they are abusing their positions to make political points.
Many people with no scientific background just adopt the thinking that comes down from the leaders of their social and political groups. The need to belong is stronger than the need to confirm the “received knowledge”. Current Political and social leaders are abusing that trust as they use it to create a political divide of them and us to the point of demonizing or dehumanizing the other side so they can justify “burning them at the stake” for holding a different opinion.This did not start out as a scam but now many people’s trust is being misused for political purposes.