Posted on 01/20/2024 2:30:12 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.
Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.
Sir Chris’s report for the Royal Society, published in September, concluded that a vast network of hydrogen-filled caves was needed to guard against the risk of blackouts under the shift to wind and solar generation, which the Royal Society described as “volatile” because it depends on wind and sun to produce energy.
The report was one of the starkest warnings to date of the risks faced when relying on intermittent weather-dependent energy sources without sufficient backup.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
As long as net-zero humans is achieved, it’s all good.
They relied on inaccurate data to shut down the world almost 4 yrs ago. The word “experts” always needs to be put in quotation marks.
You need temperature stations equally spaced around the globe measuring to tenths of a dregree and 100 years worth of data, if you are going to accurately predict a 1.5 degree change a century out.
At least if you are going to spend $30 trillion bucks on it.
So in other words, these Scientists MADE SHIT UP.
When are people going to start seeing these Scientists, Experts, etc. for what a vast majority of them are, LIARS, THIEVES and CHARLATANS????
Francis Menton / ‘Manhattan Contrarian’ has been making this very point over and over again for more than a year - and he’s a lawyer, for crying out loud, not even a scientist or an engineer. Basically he’s provided data that even if you overbuild wind and solar by a factor of 10, because they are unreliable you can’t power a modern economy on them unless you have battery back-up which would cost more than the combined GDP of the industrialized nations.
For all practical purposes, unless you start building nukes, Net Zero is essentially Nut Zero.
Vast network of hydrogen filled caves - what could possibly go wrong?
Well, I ain’t no climate “chief” (?) but, like kwanzaa, climate change, EVs, easter bunny, beneficent democommies....it ain’t gonna work. Jim!
bttt
Fake Climate Scams
“hydrogen-filled caves”
Thank goodness hydrogen doesn’t have a proclivity for leaking through everything (/s). Even metals. It burrows into the metal crystalline structure making it brittle as glass. (true)
Every “solution” they come up with is a thousand times more complicated and more costly than existing solutions. If any of these pie-in-the-sky solutions made a lick of economic sense, we’d have been using them the past 140 years.
“The report was one of the starkest warnings to date of the risks faced when relying on intermittent weather-dependent energy sources without sufficient backup.”
Oh, brother. Anybody with a high school education knows that the power would be on a few hours a day if you depend on intermittent sources and have no energy storage solution.
The warnings have been quite stark for ten or twenty years.
Lomborg believes in “manmade global warming”, yet he constantly warns:
1 Dec: Substack: Two New Studies Show How ‘Net Zero’ Fails The Cost-Benefit Test Miserably
WRITTEN BY BJORN LOMBORG ON NOV 30, 2023.
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of “Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World’s Poorest and our Global SDG Promises.” Read full post at WSJ (link)
In other words, each dollar spent will avoid less than 17 cents of climate damage. The total, undiscounted loss over the century is beyond ***$1,800 trillion.
For comparison, the global GDP last year was a little over $100 trillion. Although well-intentioned, current climate policy would end up destroying a sizable fraction of future prosperity...
https://stephenheins.substack.com/p/two-new-studies-show-how-net-zero
21 Dec: ClimateDepot: Statistician Bjorn Lomborg: 4 billion people are dependent on fossil fertilizer for food – Without, 4 billion will starve to death – ‘It is time to call out the astoundingly destructive & misanthropic campaigners’ who want to ‘stop oil’
by Marc Morano
https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/12/21/statistician-bjorn-lomborg-4-billion-people-are-dependent-on-fossil-fertilizer-for-food-without-4-billion-will-starve-to-death-it-is-time-to-call-out-the-astoundingly-destructive-misanthropi/
Amongst other things, the hydrogen will leak out of the caves so you won't have it when needed. One of the lessons form liquid fueled rocket engineering is that hydrogen passes through many containers. And in its room temperature/pressure state takes up a lot of space. Far better to chemically combine it with something into a more energy dense and easily handled form. Once might try combining it with carbon. Result is fairly safe and easy to store or transport in vast quantities at standard temperatures and pressures. When consumed it makes more sense to think of that chemistry as expending the fifth of our atmosphere that is O2 rather than as consuming that fuel. The expended O2 then can be replenished, essentially for fre, solar powered engine of photosynthesis, which unlike solar panels is always on somewhere and which will automatically increase production to match if more hydrocarbon fuel is consumed.
BS! The data is there they just don’t like what it says!
The whole article is laughable for its stupidity, but this sentence stands out. Just like that, poof, a pile of caves and hydrogen proof distribution systems. Oh, and hydrogen electrolyzers and all the surplus electricity to run them, and all the ICE generators to reclaim the hydrogen.
It's more likely that they could capture and use unicorn farts. That can at least be stored and distributed and used in conventional electrical generation systems.
They never need any stinking data they just like the words and say oh my that’s a winner
I am for zero tolerance for CO2 in the atmosphere, almost there, it is at 0.04%. But lose sleep if you must.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.