New paper: Energy policy needs to transition to reality

Posted: February 14, 2019 by oldbrew in Critique, Energy
Tags: , ,


The reality that can’t be faced by many is that the carbon dioxide theory of climate just doesn’t stack up, for many reasons. Expensive subsidies for part-time renewables create both economic and practical problems, as some are already finding out to their cost.

The GWPF – Press release: Rapid decarbonisation is “a delusion”

A prominent Canadian economist has called for the political classes to stop making claims that they cannot fulfil and to return to energy policies grounded in reality.

In a new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Robert Lyman sets out the economic and technological constraints on delivering decarbonization over the next two or three decades.

As he explains, renewables advocates have barely tried to demonstrate the feasibility of their plans:

“To show that rapid decarbonisation is possible, you have to show that the technologies work at scale, that they are reliable and affordable and don’t damage the environment, and that they can be deployed on the timescales envisaged. Advocates of renewables simply don’t even try to do this”.

And Lyman points out that past energy transitions have taken place on timescale much longer than those cited by politicians for moving the world onto renewables.

“They might be able to move things along slightly faster by rigging markets in favour of their favoured technologies, but they shouldn’t underestimate the resistance they are going to face as energy prices rise year after year. The gilets jaunes are a clear warning”.

Robert Lyman: Transition To Reality: The Prospects For Rapid Global Decarbonization

Comments
  1. Stephen Richards says:

    Yeah !! enfin!

  2. gbaikie says:

    I am reading it.
    “Government policies and regulation may eliminate certain choices, but they cannot
    force people to buy.”

    Socialist don’t understand this. Or don’t want to understand this.

    “Promoting wind and solar energy, for example, may increase incomes for the companies that produce
    these technologies (mostly in China), but policies that undercut the viability of oil, natural
    gas and coal production and fossil-fuel-based power generation impose large losses on the
    regions and communities where that production occurs. It would be unwise to ignore the
    political resistance that will result. ”

    Interesting point. Though one could argue that oil states tend to be corrupt and unstable. And Europe might not want to depend upon Middle East and/or Russia.
    And could be why they tend to be bat crazy in regards to wanting alternative energy.

  3. gbaikie says:

    Another aspect is one could get energy from Space. The downside is the uncertainly and the time that is needed to “get to this point” of being able to do this.
    I think it would require 50 years.
    And is not a matter of “waiting for something”, but requires actual space exploration to occur.
    With the understanding that we not actually doing this needed exploration at the moment, rather the exploration of Moon and then Mars is a plan, but not actually doing it.
    And might do it incorrectly, if it’s ever actually started.

    We have not done exploration correctly for decades.
    Apollo was PR stunt.
    And most exploration is driven by scientific interests- such as the flyby of Pluto.
    I liked the flyby of Pluto- it was interesting, but lacks practical and near term value.

    I would say that despite being stunt, Apollo was actual exploration- and useful exploration and had profound scientific value.
    But that was not it’s main purpose- which was achieved and therefore the effort was ended.
    It was very successful Cold War PR stunt.
    And don’t need any more stunts funded by the government, instead need the focus of exploration of possible usable space resources.
    And a major resource, is mineable water in space. Both on Moon and on Mars
    [and perhaps, elsewhere].

  4. gallopingcamel says:

    To make the “Green New Deal” work one approach would be to outlaw fossil fuels. That would return any country dumb enough to do it back to a 17th century economy and lifestyle.

    Alternatively one could reduce the demand for fossil fuels by applying huge taxes. For example you could raise the price of gasoline to $50 per gallon, compared to the $2 that applies where I live. You don’t need much imagination to predict how that strategy will work. Raising gas taxes by a mere $0.25 per gallon in France drove the “Gilet Jaunes” to violent protest.

    As “Oldbrew” suggests it is time for the Greenies to “Get Real”. The US senate vote on the GND should be highly revealing.

    Thirty three US senate seats will be contested in 2020……add to that vacancies due to heath, retirement etc. Currently the total is 33+1=34 (22 Republicans & 12 Democrats). My prediction is that any senator voting for the GND will not be elected in 2020 and that may explain Mitch McConnell’s impish grin while announcing the vote. Something like the “Inscrutable Smile” of the Sphinx.

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    the green hoax should have died out years ago but for the billions in subsidies and crony capitalism along with the millions in ‘research grants’
    —————————
    “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good” – Thomas Sowell
    ————————–
    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” — Groucho Marx

  6. gallopingcamel says:

    “the green hoax should have died out years ago but for the billions in subsidies and crony capitalism along with the millions in ‘research grants’”

    Right on! You have to love Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her brilliant marketing of a loony idea. She has created a wonderful opportunity for “Deniers” (aka Realists) to pile on with criticism from all directions.

    The GND is economic suicide.
    The GND will achieve nothing worthwhile.
    The GND is immoral because it hurts the poor more than the rich.
    The GND will bring the four horsemen of the apocalypse (death, famine, war, and conquest).
    The GND will bring pestilence.

    Let’s do it with gusto and enthusiasm. Let Truth and Reason be heard!

  7. oldbrew says:

    Trump is rubbing his hands at such an obvious and easy target.

    Feb 11, 2019 · President Donald Trump ridiculed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” proposal during a rally on Monday in El Paso, Texas. “It sounds like a high school term paper that got a low mark,” Trump said, noting that it would shut down the oil industry and air travel.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/11/donald-trump-rips-apart-green-new-deal-a-high-school-term-paper/

  8. dscott says:

    FRACK’S LACKING BACKING Theresa May has been urged to back fracking as company says it has found ’30 years worth of gas’ in East Midlands

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8432323/theresa-may-fracking-30-years-gas/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s