as an economic geologist I have a unique perspective on energy, energy policy, and energy's absolute reliance on minerals to produce the energy we most use in the form of electricity. I live in Southern Arizona, copper country, and have been increasingly alarmed at the opposition to mining. Its akin to moving close to an airport and complaining about planes. Mining is almost never discussed as THE essential part of civilization. In discussing energy policy the necessity of mining gets lost. Mark Mills is about the only economist to discuss the necessity. It should be an important and indispensable part of energy policy. But it usually is not.
Please address the issue of tipping points. It may be that the significant/highly problematic impacts of climate change occur the way Hemingway described bankruptcy - "slowly at first, and then all of a sudden." It actually seems like many things in reality exhibit this pattern, e.g. the symptoms of diseases. Non-linear and the potential for cascading impacts are something I would really like to see you address in detail in a set of posts. Thanks.
1 IF there is surplus [future Wind + future Solar]
2 AND there is unused energy storage capacity in future LDES
3 THEN that future LDES can receive and store ‘green’ energy (thereby reducing the amount of energy that has to be constrained / curtailed)
4 UNTIL (at maximum) the future LDES becomes ‘full’
SO
5 WHEN there is a shortfall of [future Wind + future Solar]
6 AND there is ‘charged-up’ future LDES
7 THEN we could get back up to 75% [1] of the energy stored in the LDES (thereby reducing the shortfall of energy)
8 UNTIL (at minimum) the LDES becomes ‘empty’ [2]
[1] based on average round-trip efficiency efficiency of pumped hydro storage.
[2] The operating range of LDES needs to remain within constraints on e.g. depth of discharge (DOD) which will probably depend on its technology. Work with net storage capacity and assume we remain within such constraints, whatever the technology mix.
Assume no limits on charge / discharge cycles or other aspects of LDES operation: if there is capacity to be charged, or stored energy to be discharged, then analysis uses it.
Much has been published about green electricity generation via Solar and Wind, yet the inherent drawbacks due to intermittency, transmission costs and limited grid penetration have gotten little attention. May I suggest THB write a series of informative articles for the public at large to aid in better understanding the limitations of green energy generation?
Not that long ago I might have considered myself heterodox or centrist, but the political spectrum seems to have been yanked radically leftward without me changing much. Ideology now predominates over rationality, and I don't like it.
But I appreciate your clear, levelheaded discussion of the issues. Thanks.
I source information about climate that frankly contradicts pretty much everything the MSM says about it. A lot of places (e.g. Russia, large parts of India, large parts of China, California, Argentina now, large parts of Australia) have/is been whacked by winter weather that was/is colder and/or has lasted longer than has happened in decades. I live in BC and half the plants and a tree in my yards (and all my neighbours') have died from this year's winter. The winemakers are panicking and begging for subsidies. None of this jives with the warming narrative. I would be interested to read what you might make of that colder weather data.
Again, I really value somewhere to go for high quality information on climate data that you have been providing for years. I see so much spin and deception out there. Keep it honest, relevant, and high quality. I also appreciate your excellent graphics, which I can use in my own presentations…with proper credits , of course.
The post that turned me into a paying subscriber was the analysis of climate science journalism where you characterized the 5 dominant (and divisive) editorial slants that pay the media bills. I was able to immediately apply your thinking to my own lens on science communication. How climate and policy "show up" in everyday, layman's popular culture, is interesting and useful for this non-scientist reader.
I'll have to throw my hat in the ring and say this. I am tired of seeing models and fear-mongering climate spokespeople, the vast majority of which are proved wrong, still survive their hugely incorrect prognostications. One can model all you want, but if time proves you wrong it is time to admit it. I recall as a teen in the 70's that TIME magazine was crowing about the "coming ice age" - I just knew I should have kept that issue! But what is disheartening is how politicians are driving for unrealistic "solutions" mainly centered on CO2 emissions.
Today, we have US agencies telling third-world African countries that they will get foreign aid if they install environmental friendly/sustainable energy systems when what they really need are inexpensive and reliable gas-powered plants to help lift them out of abject poverty What hypocrisy to not help them with that but to instead push on them expensive, virtue signaling "climate solutions" from rich countries.
Lastly, we keep hearing and reading ad nauseum of increased deaths, increased damages, increase in the number of extreme events, yada yada yada. Hogwash. And NYC and Miami are still afloat after all those dire warnings. Just take a look at a slice of ACTUAL DATA, not one driven by a "model", read Wielicki's https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/obscure-metrics-vs-observable-data
I have put scientific integrity as the main point, as lack of it is responsible for pretty much all of our current woes. One thing I canmnot get my head round is the aim to decrease CO2, as many governments e.g. Canada and UK, endorse increasing it for horticulture to 1,200 ppm compared to current 400ppm That is for increase yield of up to 70%, and still far below historic levels over all time
Dinah Shumway
as an economic geologist I have a unique perspective on energy, energy policy, and energy's absolute reliance on minerals to produce the energy we most use in the form of electricity. I live in Southern Arizona, copper country, and have been increasingly alarmed at the opposition to mining. Its akin to moving close to an airport and complaining about planes. Mining is almost never discussed as THE essential part of civilization. In discussing energy policy the necessity of mining gets lost. Mark Mills is about the only economist to discuss the necessity. It should be an important and indispensable part of energy policy. But it usually is not.
I would like to see a deposit of links of your public speeches, videos, interviews.
I’m trying to figure out how to better organize my professional home page
Advice welcomed
See: rogerpielkejr.com
Please address the issue of tipping points. It may be that the significant/highly problematic impacts of climate change occur the way Hemingway described bankruptcy - "slowly at first, and then all of a sudden." It actually seems like many things in reality exhibit this pattern, e.g. the symptoms of diseases. Non-linear and the potential for cascading impacts are something I would really like to see you address in detail in a set of posts. Thanks.
I will!
True or false?
For any energy stored in LDES to be ‘Green’:
1 IF there is surplus [future Wind + future Solar]
2 AND there is unused energy storage capacity in future LDES
3 THEN that future LDES can receive and store ‘green’ energy (thereby reducing the amount of energy that has to be constrained / curtailed)
4 UNTIL (at maximum) the future LDES becomes ‘full’
SO
5 WHEN there is a shortfall of [future Wind + future Solar]
6 AND there is ‘charged-up’ future LDES
7 THEN we could get back up to 75% [1] of the energy stored in the LDES (thereby reducing the shortfall of energy)
8 UNTIL (at minimum) the LDES becomes ‘empty’ [2]
[1] based on average round-trip efficiency efficiency of pumped hydro storage.
[2] The operating range of LDES needs to remain within constraints on e.g. depth of discharge (DOD) which will probably depend on its technology. Work with net storage capacity and assume we remain within such constraints, whatever the technology mix.
Assume no limits on charge / discharge cycles or other aspects of LDES operation: if there is capacity to be charged, or stored energy to be discharged, then analysis uses it.
Keep up the good work. Your insights are appreciated.
Much has been published about green electricity generation via Solar and Wind, yet the inherent drawbacks due to intermittency, transmission costs and limited grid penetration have gotten little attention. May I suggest THB write a series of informative articles for the public at large to aid in better understanding the limitations of green energy generation?
Not that long ago I might have considered myself heterodox or centrist, but the political spectrum seems to have been yanked radically leftward without me changing much. Ideology now predominates over rationality, and I don't like it.
But I appreciate your clear, levelheaded discussion of the issues. Thanks.
I love your work. Integrity!
I source information about climate that frankly contradicts pretty much everything the MSM says about it. A lot of places (e.g. Russia, large parts of India, large parts of China, California, Argentina now, large parts of Australia) have/is been whacked by winter weather that was/is colder and/or has lasted longer than has happened in decades. I live in BC and half the plants and a tree in my yards (and all my neighbours') have died from this year's winter. The winemakers are panicking and begging for subsidies. None of this jives with the warming narrative. I would be interested to read what you might make of that colder weather data.
Again, I really value somewhere to go for high quality information on climate data that you have been providing for years. I see so much spin and deception out there. Keep it honest, relevant, and high quality. I also appreciate your excellent graphics, which I can use in my own presentations…with proper credits , of course.
The post that turned me into a paying subscriber was the analysis of climate science journalism where you characterized the 5 dominant (and divisive) editorial slants that pay the media bills. I was able to immediately apply your thinking to my own lens on science communication. How climate and policy "show up" in everyday, layman's popular culture, is interesting and useful for this non-scientist reader.
Thanks!
Here it is, for everyone else:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/top-five-climate-change-narratives
As for my favorite topic, I am interested in all of them about equally...
I'll have to throw my hat in the ring and say this. I am tired of seeing models and fear-mongering climate spokespeople, the vast majority of which are proved wrong, still survive their hugely incorrect prognostications. One can model all you want, but if time proves you wrong it is time to admit it. I recall as a teen in the 70's that TIME magazine was crowing about the "coming ice age" - I just knew I should have kept that issue! But what is disheartening is how politicians are driving for unrealistic "solutions" mainly centered on CO2 emissions.
Today, we have US agencies telling third-world African countries that they will get foreign aid if they install environmental friendly/sustainable energy systems when what they really need are inexpensive and reliable gas-powered plants to help lift them out of abject poverty What hypocrisy to not help them with that but to instead push on them expensive, virtue signaling "climate solutions" from rich countries.
Lastly, we keep hearing and reading ad nauseum of increased deaths, increased damages, increase in the number of extreme events, yada yada yada. Hogwash. And NYC and Miami are still afloat after all those dire warnings. Just take a look at a slice of ACTUAL DATA, not one driven by a "model", read Wielicki's https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/obscure-metrics-vs-observable-data
I'm here to support you for the long haul, being a fan of your work for almost 20 years.
Thank you Roel!
I have put scientific integrity as the main point, as lack of it is responsible for pretty much all of our current woes. One thing I canmnot get my head round is the aim to decrease CO2, as many governments e.g. Canada and UK, endorse increasing it for horticulture to 1,200 ppm compared to current 400ppm That is for increase yield of up to 70%, and still far below historic levels over all time
Hi Roger, on this latest poll, my answers to question 2 are: climate science & policy, scientific integrity, energy policy & politics.