...term for it that's become quite popular, "the Dunning Kruger Effect."
I have never met an antinuke "renewable energy will save" us fool, in particular those who want to greenwash fossil fuels as "hydrogen," thus demonstrating contempt for one of the most important sets of scientific laws, those of thermodynamics, who can look in the mirror and see Dunning and see Kruger.
They're poorly educated, every one of them, "green hydrogen" morons, "solar and wind will save us" morons, who seek to tear up thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands of square miles of virgin land for wind turbines that operate with less than 40% capacity utilization and solar farms, requiring redundancy, that are even worse, every fucking one of them, unable to see or care that the world is burning.
There's that great cliche often attributed erroneously to Albert Einstein, "Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity."
One of the most prominent antinukes in the world, Amory Lovins, another "renewable energy will save us" asshole, spent a lot of time telling everyone that energy efficiency would reduce energy demand. This is in spite of the fact that Jevon's Paradox was first published in 1865, more than 8 decades before that poorly educated rube was born. Surprise, surprise! Energy efficiency went up and energy demand went up. And now, the fact that Jevon's paradox held despite soothsaying from a "renewable energy will save us" idiot who claimed otherwise, it's an excuse?
Advocates for the reactionary scheme of so called "renewable energy" are full of excuses, one of which is that the demand for energy is increasing. Of course, a viable energy scheme would be untroubled by this.
It's 2025. The climate is collapsing, and trillions of dollars have been thrown at solar and wind.
A "renewables will save us" idiot here - one of those arsonists complaining about forest fires who say that nuclear energy can't grow fast enough but is unconcerned about the growth of fossil fuels - who now happily resides on my ignore list, objects when I cite the data from the IEA (and ignore the soothsaying):
IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.
The only thing interesting about the soothsaying, which is not qualitatively different from the last 50 years of "renewables will save us" soothsaying, is that it clearly shows the energy losses associated with treating hydrogen as if it were a form of primary energy, which it isn't. It says "by 2050" (when my quadratic model indicates the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere will be about 525 ppm) we'll be wasting two exajoules of primary energy to make 5 Exajoules of hydrogen on a planet that will be consuming 722 Exajoules of energy.
We'll see if we get to 722 Exajoules in a collapsed and burned planet. My feeling is that 2050 will be hell, and will be so because our energy conversations bought into antinuke's reactionary fantasies about solar and wind, useless as they are.
None of this reality, that making hydrogen wastes energy, is bound to influence the "green hydrogen" idiots from offering their very, very, very stupid apologetics and in effect, promotion of fossil fuels.
As of 2023, solar and wind combined, after squandering trillions of dollars, tearing the shit out vast areas of virgin land and disrupting ecosystems, produced just 16 Exajoules of energy, this is an atmosphere of wild sybaritic cheering by energy illiterates, slightly more than half as much energy as nuclear produced in an atmosphere of idiotic criticism and selective attention.
Last year, about 7 million people died from dangerous fossil fuel waste, and that's not counting the deaths from extreme weather, facts about which no "renewables will save us" cultist will ever convince me they give a shit about these deaths, although they never tire of carrying on stupidly about so called "nuclear waste" which has a spectacular record of not killing anyone.
They don't give a shit about fossil fuels. Their excuses "energy demand is rising" are fucking intellectually and morally insipid, beneath contempt really. There isn't enough land or metal or mines on this planet to bring that crap to even a few hundred exajoules, and an effort to do that would result in an unprecedented environmental tragedy even greater than the one we're experiencing right now after decades of hearing about some putative future "renewable energy" nirvana. The "renewable energy will save us" cultists are a part - a big part - of the problem and have not a clue about the disastrous moral or technical implications that their ignorance has exacerbated.
Have a nice evening.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read