In a few years, the obvious failure will be used to scare people into
supporting more government mandates, regulations and laws.
After all,
we must save the planet for the children !
Anyone who disagrees must
hate the planet and children, and is probably a racist and white
supremacist too. Or even worse -- unvaxxed.
I have reviewed many Nut Zero cost estimates in the past few years,
and they generally miss some large costs, which I will list.
It's really not possible to cost estimate a general goal, with no
specific detailed plan and timing.
I do know the variables have changed
recently, making any cost estimate irrelevant.
Right now it seems possible that nuclear power, burning wood and
natural gas will be considered "green".
Perhaps only temporarily for
natural gas, as a "transition fuel".
But if the green zealots can
declare burning wood is "green", which they currently do, we are not
dealing with logical people.
Who knows what will be called "green" in
the future?
Here are the items I usually find missing, or significantly under estimated, in cost estimates of Nut Zero:
(1) Lifetime asset costs, lets say over a 100 year period:
Windmills and solar panels will last 15 to 20 years
Natural gas plants can last 40 to 50 years
Coal plants can last 50 to 60 years
Nuclear plants can last 60 to 80 years,
and perhaps longer
(2) Insufficient battery backup, and unknown future battery costs. Batteries
do wear out, and after they are used, they need to be recharged right
away, using electrical generation capacity that will temporarily not be
available for electric utility customers.
(3) Long, expensive transmission lines to distant, rural wind farms
and solar farms. These will face delays from the lawsuits from NIMBYs.
(4) Declining wind output per turbine, and declining solar output per solar panel, as the best locations are used.
(5) Increased electrical generation capacity will be needed for
charging the growing numbers of electric vehicles, and homes and
businesses heated with electricity.
(6) Fewer blue collar jobs, and perhaps more welfare, as even more
manufacturing is outsourced to nations in Asia that have cheaper labor,
and cheaper and more reliable electricity, primarily from coal.
(7) Government subsidies and tax credits
(8) The Green New Ordeal includes far more spending on social
programs (perhaps 2/3) than on an energy transition. Can we separate the
costs of these social programs? Some are designed to help people pay
for much higher energy costs. Most are completely unrelated to energy.
(9) Lots of "free" flashlights, candles, and battery packs, for homeowners to use during the expected brownouts and blackouts.
Nut Zero is just a green dream.
A goal, with no plan
Designed to fail.
It will fail even if the leftist green dreamers actually believe it is feasible, but I can't imagine they are that dumb.
The real climate emergency is mental, not physical:
Many people believe, even after 47 years of mild, pleasant global warming, that future warming will be completely different.
And
they have believed in that climate boogeyman since the late 1950s.
Climate change is a fantasy -- nothing more than repeated predictions of
a coming climate crisis, based on no data.
There are no data for the future.
There are only data for the present and past.
Real science requires data.
"Climate change" only has
unproven theories and
always wrong long term
climate predictions.
That's climate astrology,
not climate science !
In a few years, the obvious failure will be used to scare people into supporting more government mandates, regulations and laws.
After all, we must save the planet for the children !
Anyone who disagrees must hate the planet and children, and is probably a racist and white supremacist too. Or even worse -- unvaxxed.
I have reviewed many Nut Zero cost estimates in the past few years, and they generally miss some large costs, which I will list.
It's really not possible to cost estimate a general goal, with no specific detailed plan and timing.
I do know the variables have changed recently, making any cost estimate irrelevant.
Right now it seems possible that nuclear power, burning wood and natural gas will be considered "green".
Perhaps only temporarily for natural gas, as a "transition fuel".
But if the green zealots can declare burning wood is "green", which they currently do, we are not dealing with logical people.
Who knows what will be called "green" in the future?
Here are the items I usually find missing, or significantly under estimated, in cost estimates of Nut Zero:
Windmills and solar panels will last 15 to 20 years
Natural gas plants can last 40 to 50 years
Coal plants can last 50 to 60 years
Nuclear plants can last 60 to 80 years,
(2) Insufficient battery backup, and unknown future battery costs. Batteries do wear out, and after they are used, they need to be recharged right away, using electrical generation capacity that will temporarily not be available for electric utility customers.
(3) Long, expensive transmission lines to distant, rural wind farms and solar farms. These will face delays from the lawsuits from NIMBYs.
(4) Declining wind output per turbine, and declining solar output per solar panel, as the best locations are used.
(5) Increased electrical generation capacity will be needed for charging the growing numbers of electric vehicles, and homes and businesses heated with electricity.
(6) Fewer blue collar jobs, and perhaps more welfare, as even more manufacturing is outsourced to nations in Asia that have cheaper labor, and cheaper and more reliable electricity, primarily from coal.
(7) Government subsidies and tax credits
(8) The Green New Ordeal includes far more spending on social programs (perhaps 2/3) than on an energy transition. Can we separate the costs of these social programs? Some are designed to help people pay for much higher energy costs. Most are completely unrelated to energy.
(9) Lots of "free" flashlights, candles, and battery packs, for homeowners to use during the expected brownouts and blackouts.
Nut Zero is just a green dream.
A goal, with no plan
Designed to fail.
It will fail even if the leftist green dreamers actually believe it is feasible, but I can't imagine they are that dumb.
The real climate emergency is mental, not physical:
Many people believe, even after 47 years of mild, pleasant global warming, that future warming will be completely different.
And they have believed in that climate boogeyman since the late 1950s. Climate change is a fantasy -- nothing more than repeated predictions of a coming climate crisis, based on no data.
There are no data for the future.
There are only data for the present and past.
Real science requires data.
"Climate change" only has
unproven theories and
always wrong long term
climate predictions.
That's climate astrology,
not climate science !