1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • The Truth about "net-zero"

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 30 21:21:10 2023
    By 2030, the IEA’s net zero pathway uses an additional $16.5 trillion of capital. More investment should make labor more efficient. Not with clean energy. Renewables require nearly 38.5% more labor, global energy employment rising by nearly 25 million.
    Yet this new energy system produces 7% less energy, implying a calamitous 33.0% fall in energy output per employee. If that’s not bad enough, solar and wind require an area equivalent to the combined size of California and Texas and bioenergy for
    electricity production an area the size of France and Mexico combined.

    There is no theory in growth economics that says that more inputs of land, labor and capital for less output is a formula for sustained economic growth.

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/06/20/eprinc_report_shows_that_iea_net_zero_roadmap_is_a_green_mirage_941962.html

    Claims that "renewable energy" will be cheaper is just a bunch of BS.
    More expensive to capitalize.
    More expensive and labor intensive to operate.
    Far more expensive to site.

    A formula for economic disaster.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Jul 1 08:01:44 2023
    On 6/30/23 11:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    By 2030, the IEA’s net zero pathway uses an additional $16.5 trillion
    of capital. More investment should make labor more efficient. Not
    with clean energy. Renewables require nearly 38.5% more labor, global
    energy employment rising by nearly 25 million. Yet this new energy
    system produces 7% less energy, implying a calamitous 33.0% fall in
    energy output per employee. If that’s not bad enough, solar and wind require an area equivalent to the combined size of California and
    Texas and bioenergy for electricity production an area the size of
    France and Mexico combined.

    There is no theory in growth economics that says that more inputs of
    land, labor and capital for less output is a formula for sustained
    economic growth.

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/06/20/eprinc_report_shows_that_iea_net_zero_roadmap_is_a_green_mirage_941962.html

    Claims that "renewable energy" will be cheaper is just a bunch of
    BS. More expensive to capitalize. More expensive and labor intensive
    to operate. Far more expensive to site.

    A formula for economic disaster.

    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 1 07:53:45 2023
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:01:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 6/30/23 11:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
    By 2030, the IEA’s net zero pathway uses an additional $16.5 trillion
    of capital. More investment should make labor more efficient. Not
    with clean energy. Renewables require nearly 38.5% more labor, global energy employment rising by nearly 25 million. Yet this new energy
    system produces 7% less energy, implying a calamitous 33.0% fall in
    energy output per employee. If that’s not bad enough, solar and wind require an area equivalent to the combined size of California and
    Texas and bioenergy for electricity production an area the size of
    France and Mexico combined.

    There is no theory in growth economics that says that more inputs of
    land, labor and capital for less output is a formula for sustained economic growth.

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/06/20/eprinc_report_shows_that_iea_net_zero_roadmap_is_a_green_mirage_941962.html

    Claims that "renewable energy" will be cheaper is just a bunch of
    BS. More expensive to capitalize. More expensive and labor intensive
    to operate. Far more expensive to site.

    A formula for economic disaster.
    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about.

    Now you can't even cope with a link in a link?
    I lost my gerber spoon a long time ago.

    But you got one thing right....net zero is an economic mess.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Jul 1 10:17:54 2023
    On 7/1/23 9:53 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:01:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about.

    Now you can't even cope with a link in a link?

    No, the format and lack of distinction of quoted and original material
    are bad enough but the sequence of ideas is garbled.

    I lost my gerber spoon a long time ago.

    Don't you worry: I'm looking at the IEA and EPRINC now.

    However, that doesn't mean a reader can't criticize your writing.

    But you got one thing right....net zero is an economic mess.

    A conclusion you reached without reading the IEA.

    For a so-called "forensic analysis" the EPRINC doesn't seem very
    objective. For instance, the IEA:

    "In the net-zero emissions pathway presented in this report, the world
    economy in 2030 is some 40% larger than today but uses 7% less energy."

    is transmogrified by EPRINC into a "calamitous fall ... in energy output
    per employee" and leads to invoking sophomoric economic jargon.

    That's some change-what's-measured back-of-the-envelope speculation, not
    a "forensic analysis," and the "more inputs ... for less output"
    disregards the growth of the world economy posited. They're looking at
    the wrong level.

    Not to mention you were for enormous solar farms; now they take too much
    room.

    Another weak point: EPRINC touts innovation as the "secret sauce" that
    will save their plan of business as usual, but this innovation isn't
    considered in the IEA path forward.

    IEA: The biggest innovation opportunities concern advanced batteries,
    hydrogen electrolysers, and direct air capture and storage. Together,
    these three technology areas make vital contributions the reductions in
    CO2 emissions between 2030 and 2050 in our pathway. Innovation over the
    next ten years – not only through research and development (R&D) and demonstration but also through deployment – needs to be accompanied by
    the large-scale construction of the infrastructure the technologies will
    need. This includes new pipelines to transport captured CO2 emissions
    and systems to move hydrogen around and between ports and industrial zones.

    Clearly a different metric than "energy output per employee in the
    energy field" is needed to evaluate the best path to carbon neutrality
    in the service of slowing climate change.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 1 08:36:30 2023
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 8:17:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/1/23 9:53 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:01:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about.

    Now you can't even cope with a link in a link?
    No, the format and lack of distinction of quoted and original material
    are bad enough but the sequence of ideas is garbled.
    I lost my gerber spoon a long time ago.
    Don't you worry: I'm looking at the IEA and EPRINC now.

    However, that doesn't mean a reader can't criticize your writing.
    But you got one thing right....net zero is an economic mess.
    A conclusion you reached without reading the IEA.

    For a so-called "forensic analysis" the EPRINC doesn't seem very
    objective. For instance, the IEA:

    "In the net-zero emissions pathway presented in this report, the world economy in 2030 is some 40% larger than today but uses 7% less energy."

    is transmogrified by EPRINC into a "calamitous fall ... in energy output
    per employee" and leads to invoking sophomoric economic jargon.

    That's some change-what's-measured back-of-the-envelope speculation, not
    a "forensic analysis," and the "more inputs ... for less output"
    disregards the growth of the world economy posited. They're looking at
    the wrong level.

    I've got the utility bills to prove they're right.

    You know...where the EV rubber hits the road.

    All your gibberish about renewables being cheaper is just BS.
    The bills keep coming....larger and larger.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Jul 1 11:11:27 2023
    On 7/1/23 10:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 8:17:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/1/23 9:53 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:01:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about. >>>
    Now you can't even cope with a link in a link?
    No, the format and lack of distinction of quoted and original material
    are bad enough but the sequence of ideas is garbled.
    I lost my gerber spoon a long time ago.
    Don't you worry: I'm looking at the IEA and EPRINC now.

    However, that doesn't mean a reader can't criticize your writing.
    But you got one thing right....net zero is an economic mess.
    A conclusion you reached without reading the IEA.

    For a so-called "forensic analysis" the EPRINC doesn't seem very
    objective. For instance, the IEA:

    "In the net-zero emissions pathway presented in this report, the world
    economy in 2030 is some 40% larger than today but uses 7% less energy."

    is transmogrified by EPRINC into a "calamitous fall ... in energy output
    per employee" and leads to invoking sophomoric economic jargon.

    That's some change-what's-measured back-of-the-envelope speculation, not
    a "forensic analysis," and the "more inputs ... for less output"
    disregards the growth of the world economy posited. They're looking at
    the wrong level.

    I've got the utility bills to prove they're right.

    You know...where the EV rubber hits the road.

    It's 2050 already?

    All your gibberish about renewables being cheaper is just BS.
    The bills keep coming....larger and larger.

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 2 20:05:45 2023
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/1/23 10:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 8:17:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/1/23 9:53 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:01:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    What a mess. Link the eprinc report if that's what you want to talk about.

    Now you can't even cope with a link in a link?
    No, the format and lack of distinction of quoted and original material
    are bad enough but the sequence of ideas is garbled.
    I lost my gerber spoon a long time ago.
    Don't you worry: I'm looking at the IEA and EPRINC now.

    However, that doesn't mean a reader can't criticize your writing.
    But you got one thing right....net zero is an economic mess.
    A conclusion you reached without reading the IEA.

    For a so-called "forensic analysis" the EPRINC doesn't seem very
    objective. For instance, the IEA:

    "In the net-zero emissions pathway presented in this report, the world
    economy in 2030 is some 40% larger than today but uses 7% less energy." >>
    is transmogrified by EPRINC into a "calamitous fall ... in energy output >> per employee" and leads to invoking sophomoric economic jargon.

    That's some change-what's-measured back-of-the-envelope speculation, not >> a "forensic analysis," and the "more inputs ... for less output"
    disregards the growth of the world economy posited. They're looking at
    the wrong level.

    I've got the utility bills to prove they're right.

    You know...where the EV rubber hits the road.
    It's 2050 already?
    All your gibberish about renewables being cheaper is just BS.
    The bills keep coming....larger and larger.
    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Jul 3 06:48:39 2023
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.

    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    We'll chalk it up to your general reading comprehension problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 3 08:36:22 2023
    mINE109 wrote:

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    We'll chalk it up to your general reading comprehension problem.

    This may be another minefield for Snowflake Shmoos.

    "Reading comprehension disorder is a reading disability in which a person has trouble
    understanding the meaning of words and passages of writing. ... Some students have
    trouble learning to read and pronounce words, but grasping meaning from text is their
    main challenge. Many students with this learning difference are fluent readers who just
    have trouble understanding what they are reading."

    https://www.verywellfamily.com/learning-disability-in-reading-comprehension-2162449

    The author's summary includes what could be a bull's-eye designation of what afflicts poor
    Supey Shmoo - specific reading comprehension deficit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 3 08:45:03 2023
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:48:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    You can be sincere and completely detached from reality.
    You're living proof.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 3 09:02:40 2023
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 7:48:42 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    We'll chalk it up to your general reading comprehension problem.

    You carry a dump truck full of hypocrisy, so you can't possibly be sincere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Jul 3 11:10:40 2023
    On 7/3/23 10:45 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:48:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    You can be sincere and completely detached from reality.
    You're living proof.

    And you're arguing by insult, not fact. Meanwhile, in reality,
    "sincerity" is not an emotion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 3 09:16:04 2023
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:10:43 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/3/23 10:45 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:48:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit,
    or hypocrisy."

    You can be sincere and completely detached from reality.
    You're living proof.
    And you're arguing by insult, not fact. Meanwhile, in reality,
    "sincerity" is not an emotion.

    What else do you call a "state of mind"?

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Jul 3 11:33:24 2023
    On 7/3/23 11:16 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:10:43 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/3/23 10:45 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:48:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit, >>>> or hypocrisy."

    You can be sincere and completely detached from reality.
    You're living proof.
    And you're arguing by insult, not fact. Meanwhile, in reality,
    "sincerity" is not an emotion.

    What else do you call a "state of mind"?

    It's not a "state of mind."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 3 09:45:30 2023
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:33:26 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/3/23 11:16 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:10:43 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/3/23 10:45 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:48:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 7/2/23 10:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 9:11:30 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    You can never lose with an insincere argument.

    Sincerity is an emotion. Reality just is.
    Sincerity and Reality have a lot in common according to the first
    definition comes up: "the quality of being free from pretense, deceit, >>>> or hypocrisy."

    You can be sincere and completely detached from reality.
    You're living proof.
    And you're arguing by insult, not fact. Meanwhile, in reality,
    "sincerity" is not an emotion.

    What else do you call a "state of mind"?
    It's not a "state of mind."

    You're not sincere.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)