Climate Change

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Kikicaca, Aug 9, 2021.

  1. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
    NYC HAS HEARING TO BE NET ZERO CARBON BY 2031. ONLY ONE BRAVE PERSON OUT OF 60 TOLD THE TRUTH.

    My name is Francis Menton. I live in Manhattan. I am testifying as a private citizen.


    I feel like I am in the crowd that has come to observe the grand procession where the Emperor unveils his new clothes. The Emperor has no clothes on. He is completely naked. Am I the only one who can see this?

    100% carbon free electricity or energy for New York, at least unless based substantially on nuclear, is not different from the Emperor’s new clothes. It is a ridiculous and dangerous fantasy. It will not and cannot happen. It will shortly run into the wall off physical reality.

    I will briefly address three aspects:

    1. Energy storage

    2. Hydrogen

    3. The global context
    Energy storage.

    Supposedly, we are replacing our fossil fuel generation (mostly natural gas) with wind and sun. Sun does not work at night, and there is little in the winter. Wind does not work when it is calm. Neither works on a calm night.

    How do you plan to back this up when we have no more coal or natural gas? The treatment of this subject in the Scoping Plan is breathtakingly incompetent. Where is the calculation of how much storage you will need to get through a full year? The Scoping Plan doesn’t even make that calculation in the correct units, which are gigawatt hours.

    You’re going to need at least 10,000 GWH of storage to back up just current usage if you replace a fossil fuel generation with wind and solar. At the price of Tesla batteries, that will run you about $1.5 trillion, which is approximately the entire GDP of New York State. If you triple electricity consumption by electrifying vehicles and homes, then you must triple the storage, and it will cost at least 3 times GDP. And by the way, you need a battery that can store electricity all the way from summer to winter without all the energy dissipating and then discharge over the course of months. No existing battery can do that.

    This can’t be done. How could you commit us to this without any feasibility study, any detailed cost workup, let alone a demonstration project showing that it can be done?

    Hydrogen.

    Hydrogen is not the answer to this. To generate hydrogen from water is enormously costly. And then you promptly lose about three-quarters of the energy you expended, because one-quarter is all you get back when you burn the hydrogen. And then, the H2 is inferior in every way to natural gas:

    • H2 is only about one-fourth as energy dense by volume as natural gas. Are you planning to quadruple all the pipeline capacity?

    • H2 is much more a danger to explode than is natural gas.

    • H2 is a tiny molecule that is very difficult to keep from leaking. And very corrosive to metal pipes. Do all homeowners have to replace their internal pipes?

    • How much more does H2 cost than natural gas? 5 times? 10 times? Where is the detailed cost study? Where is the demonstration project?
    Nobody currently does hydrogen at large scale and there are very good reasons for that.

    The Global Context

    New York’s average electricity usage is around 20 GW. You’re talking about building a “massive” 9 GW of new offshore wind turbines in the effort to go carbon free.

    Meanwhile, do you know what China is doing? Just this year, they are building 47 GW of new coal plants. Those will produce all the time, versus only one-third of the time for our wind turbines, so China is building just this year in coal plants some 15 times our planned massive wind turbine development.

    And then they have another 100+ GW of coal plants in the works for just the next couple of years.

    And then there’s India. They have about the same population as China (1.4 billion, which is 70x our population). India is way behind China on electrification. They explicitly say they are going to do it with coal. That will be well over 1000 GW of coal capacity by the time they are done.

    And then there’s Africa. They have about 1 billion people — and 2 billion projected by 2100. And most of those people have no electricity at all. They’re also going to do it with coal.

    Who are we trying to kid here? To the extent that New York is able to reduce emissions somewhat, it will be completely insignificant in the global context.

    The whole project for New York is completely unworkable, wildly expensive, and utterly meaningless in the global context. People, this emperor has no clothes.

    Thank you.

    I’m not fooling myself into thinking that this will have any immediate impact. I will say that among all the other speakers, not a one addressed or attempted to refute any of my points. Clearly, to a person, they were unaware of these issues. It’s kind of shocking.
     
    mctiger and Winston1 like this.
  2. mctiger

    mctiger RIP, and thanks for the music Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    24,189
    Likes Received:
    15,087
  3. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
  4. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
    Black folks being discriminated against having shade. Shade for blacks part of reparations. Just wondering about the poor people that live in desert communities. Oh wait most are white, nevermind.

    California Reparations Report Demands Tree Planting in ‘Black Neighborhoods’ for ‘Shade Equity

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06...ting-in-black-neighborhoods-for-shade-equity/

    Guess I should have put this post in the humor thread
     
  5. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
  6. onceanlsufan

    onceanlsufan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,565
    Likes Received:
    2,088
  7. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
  8. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
  9. onceanlsufan

    onceanlsufan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,565
    Likes Received:
    2,088
    Yes ... but at least we can try. I've pretty much stopped reading all this climate crap. It's established that the science takes second fiddle to politics. What's a scientists to do .. (sigh)
     
  10. Kikicaca

    Kikicaca Meaux

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    14,258
    Likes Received:
    6,061
    I hear you. I stopped doing research too. I have done enough to have convinced myself the climate is just another DEMOCRAT tool to advance their agenda. All I do now is try to expose the Rex's of the world for the dupes they are or willing frauds they are. I use that book simply as a reference and as suggested reading for normal people which excludes Rex.
     

Share This Page