Hello David,
Just a few comments.
Never before has humanity been so numerous and so advanced technologically, which means we have never before spewed so much of our waste products into the atmosphere. At the same time an overwhelming number of scientists say we are the main cause of the well documented rise in global temperatures lately. It intrigues me why anyone should so adamantly dispute this.
I suppose you don't like taxes very much. How about all the benefits that we all receive from taxes, in terms of infrastructure and services? In my mind what we should concentrate on is to make taxes more efficient and more equitable. Are you in favour of loopholes for the extremely rich? How about tax havens that rob community services of huge amounts of resources?
Fusion power is a far away dream. It involves temperatures so high that engineering methods may never contain them. In the meantime, solar power is available and super abundant. Why would one so studiously neglect this? Maybe the solar panels on your cottage are disappointing to you, but solar power is growing rapidly worldwide. Its future is much brighter than that of fusion power.
Fossil fuel sources are a limited source of energy in a finite planet. Why would they not eventually peak and decline? Compared to fossil fuels, solar power is as close to an unlimited energy source as we are likely to get.
Best to you,
[Rebellious Seeker]
January 10, 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello [Rebellious Seeker], and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am happy to engage in discussion on this topic as I have studied it and thought about it for many years and am passionate about human flourishing.
I did not mention global warming because it was not necessary to do so in order to find immorality in the actions of government and pressure groups. I have read extensively on the subject but decided there was no need nor sufficient room in a letter to the editor to go on a tangent into this subject. While I could write for hours on the subject, I can summarize my position as follows.
The Earth's climate is in constant flux in every way and over all time scales. There are multiple overlapping and interacting natural cycles that influence atmospheric temperature, the most dominant of which appears to be cycles of solar intensity interacting with cloud nucleus ionization seeded by cosmic ray penetration. Thus, when the sun is less intense there is an additional cooling effect due to cloud formation when the solar wind turns back less cosmic rays. It is estimated by some scientists that this cycle alone accounts for about 85% of the variation in Earth's temperature over geological time. The earth has cooled a bit since the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and warmed a bit since the Little Ice Age (LIA), events which are well documented in the scientific literature and contemporary historical accounts. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has an effect on a particular bandwidth of infrared radiation and follows a logarithmic curve, such that the effect of additional CO2 diminishes very rapidly as concentration increases and the atmosphere is already highly optically saturated. A further doubling of CO2 would have a barely perceptible effect on earth's temperature, never mind feedback mechanisms that can offset it. There is no evidence that man's activities are causing a dangerous change to the climate that humanity cannot handle if allowed to further advance technologically.
I do have unbounded optimism for the future of a free humanity as history is testimony to the great achievements of man when free of coercion. Again, it would take a much longer essay to properly rebut, but the financial crisis of 2008 is in no way attributable to freedom and this does fall under my primary are of interest, which is finance and economics. My full time occupation is as a financial advisor for the last 23 years and I have read extensively on this subject. I recommend John Allison's book "The Financial Crisis and the free Market Cure" for more on this. He was the CEO of BB&T Bank in the US for 20 years and can testify to the vast distortions in the market caused by regulation that led to the crisis - distortions that have not been removed. His bank was forced to accept bailout money even though they had no need for it so the government could hide the weaker banks that should have been allowed to fail. There is likely no sector so highly controlled by government than finance and this has caused irreparable harm to citizens.
Regarding subsidies, they must honestly described as wealth taken by force from those who produced it and given to those who did not produce it. Such action is immoral at its root and thus cannot be claimed as a rational, human value. Government taking such actions is overriding the explicit wishes of its own citizens under the guise of claiming the economic dictators in power know better than citizens how to trade economic value with each other. For humans, whose unique characteristic is their ability to reason, which requires freedom to be acted upon, the use of force/coercion is most profoundly immoral no matter what proclamations of social good are made. I do not believe you can accomplish good ends through evil means and Germany is certainly a historical monument to this.
There is no such thing as peak oil. Yes, we will eventually use the oil that is accessible to present technology, but if technology is allowed to advance and if people are left free to innovate, there is no practical limit to the supply of energy in our future. Peak oil might as well be called peak sperm whale blubber for all the economic practicality such a concept has. I believe we will see the advent of compact fusion reactors before long and this will unlock such vast energy supplies that surround us already but we are unable to use, just as oil, gas and coal have been here for millions of years but we did not have the knowledge to use them. It was only when human knowledge multiplied due to the discovery of political and intellectual freedom (which are corollaries) during the renaissance and enlightenment, which led to the industrial revolution, that humanity discovered uses for fossil fuels, invented engines, harnessed electricity and eventually discovered nuclear power. Note that progress occurred and occurs in proportion to the freedom of the country.
Regarding the electrical grid, I agree it is a complex system and it does not require a complex thought pattern to see how the addition of solar and wind power destabilizes it. Consider a grid powered by reliable, abundant cheap sources like coal, hydro and nuclear. These produce vast quantities of energy from compact sources and can be modulated under careful control to meet the fluctuations in demand on the grid. Natural gas is very useful as an incremental energy source as it can be dialed up and down very fast with precision. Now plug in hundreds of small wind and solar sources, scattered across the grid and producing unpredictable power that cannot be turned up and down easily, are subject to constant fluctuations in the sun and wind, produce little or no power for the majority of the hours in the year (solar panels produce very little in winter, nothing at night and little to nothing under clouds). Does this make the grid more stable and predictable? When the wind blows harder the grid controllers must reduce power from the reliable sources, meaning they ramp up and down, making them less efficient than otherwise and perhaps actually causing them to have higher emissions of various types than if they were used more steadily. My cottage has been solar powered for over two decades and I can promise you it is far more unreliable than I'd like and my panels presently are encased in a foot of snow and ice. The fact is that about 85% of world energy production is still from fossil fuels and this is likely to continue for quite some time unless a radical new technology like fusion is developed. I am sure I will never see the day when photovoltaic panels and wind power comprise more than a small fraction of total power. There is no such thing as a grid powered only by solar or wind and there may never be.
All this said, I am perfectly happy to allow for the development of solar and wind power systems, so long as there is no coercion involved. If reasoning people can find a way to make them economic, produce and sell power to other people without the use of force then I am all for it since it represent a free exchange of values. if they displace other power sources on a free market then so be it. So-called "group action" is always a cover for the use of force against other people, otherwise why not just call it free human action. The term "scientific knowledge" has been used by dictators to justify the most horrific and inhuman actions, always in combination with "group action." Under the guise of the good name of science, the full context of issues is often dropped and irrational political policies implemented. Years from now historians will look back at this period of global warming alarmism and laugh at the mass delusion and anti-reasoning that became so dominant for a while, then weep at the setbacks and sacrifices suffered by humanity in the name of planetary salvation.
David McGruer
January 9, 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article “Government interference in the energy market” was written in response to my article “Our car runs on the sun” [December 31, 2016 in this blog]. Since the writer states his experience and expertise in the supply of energy, let me state mine.
I am a mechanical and civil engineer. I have taught engineering both in Africa (Tanzania) and at the Civil Engineering Department in the University of Ottawa. I have been working with renewable energy technologies for over 30 years.
Before I respond in detail to Mr. McGruer’s article, let me highlight two underlying assumptions that I have noticed.
He makes no mention of human-induced global environmental warming. I can only deduce that he either denies the reality of this phenomenon or he is indifferent to it. In any case the result of this kind of thinking leaves out a crucial factor in the discussion.
Mr. McGruer seems to have unbounded optimism in the power of the unregulated marketplace. I can cite examples where this leads to a disaster (i.e. the US 2008 economic crash), whereas sensibly regulated markets function better (taking Germany and the Scandinavian countries in Europe as an example).
Now to look at the details of Mr. McGruer’s arguments. He talks about the “deliberate negative consequences when government interferes in the market economy”. If he would look at the economy of Germany – the powerhouse of Europe, he will find that the government has extensive programs to promote renewable energy by means of subsidies which decline with time as the technologies take hold. One needs to ask how could the German economy be so robust to withstand economic shocks and still be able to take in one million refugees.
Mr. McGruer states that “Basic economics indicates that we have abundant safe, dense and portable fossil fuel supplies to last centuries”. This shows that Mr. McGruer has no clue about the reality of climate change. Tar sands oil is not safe. It contaminates the land where it is produced and spews forth greenhouse gases when it is consumed. The hope that this supply will last centuries is also not realistic. We are entering a period of peak oil and soon its extraction worldwide will decline. At the same time renewable energy technologies are becoming more efficient and cheaper. We will soon reach the point when renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. At this point it will be game over for the fossil fuel industry, which by the way is presently heavily subsidized by governments with various tax breaks.
Mr. McGruer states that “to build solar panels requires extensive mining for rare earth materials , often done in third world countries”. He needs to be informed that almost all present solar panels are made of refined silicon. Silicon is not a rare mineral. It is the main component of common beach sand. Some of the more exotic solar panels are made of rare minerals but even though they have a higher efficiency they are not competitive with silicon based panels.
I do know something about Canadian mining operations in poor countries. I have lived and worked in Africa for 8 years and have done extensive consulting work there as well as in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia. External mining companies have caused a lot of problems, but in the Middle East most of the problems relate to extracting petrol from the ground.
Next we read that “every panel connected to the grid decreases grid reliability and efficiency “….and…” every KW of solar panel energy requires 100% back up by a realistic energy source for the majority of the time”. This is not true. Decentralized solar panels strengthen the stability of the grid since the energy is produced near the consumer and distribution costs are decreased. Solar panels do not need a 100% backup. Mr. McGruer should learn about base load and peak load. A modern electrical grid is a complex affair, all managed so that the input energy pattern meets the pattern of the demand of the consumers. Presently the system is most stressed on hot sunny days when everyone has their air conditioners on. This is precisely when solar energy generation is a maximum and can supply the required peak energy. In general, the complex energy grid acts like a buffer to balance supply and demand.
Now we come to “the moral problem” of giving subsidies to early adapters as they move to renewable energies. I will not even dwell on the moral problem of global warming and then going on with business as usual; nor of the moral problem of continuing to subsidize fossil fuels.
Successful states as California, and European countries use subsidies to kick start and promote renewable energy. These subsidies decline over time as these renewable energy sources become viable on their own. Renewable energy technology costs are dropping and are being installed increasingly world wide. Mr. McGruer states that the change here is slow. It will take time but the change is coming. In the future we will see dramatic changes. Time is on the side of the renewables.
Finally, to respond to Mr. McGruer’s belief in the free decisions of citizens. Yes, if we ignore the environment and think only short term we will live better for a short time. However, in the long term if all those scientists are correct, we will be in an environmental mess. Our scientific knowledge and committed group action can lead us to a cleaner, better future. As I said before, this will happen when low cost renewable energy technologies are cheaper than polluting fossil fuels. It will then be game over for the fossil fuel industry, at least as far as its use for fuel consumption. For the health of the planet, the sooner this happens the better.
Dec. 2016
Ottawa
No comments:
Post a Comment