Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Sep 19, 6:47 pm, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 20, 5:13 am, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:52 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:03 pm, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:36 am, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:21 am, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

No. As energy efficiency in machines has gone up, energy use has
increased. It is counterintuitive, but that is what has happened
through history. The separable factor for the environment is how
"clean" the machines are, not how efficient they are, since whatever
efficiency gains made by machine #1 will be taken up by the "turn on"
of machine #2, since that energy is then newly available to machine
#2. The only way to stop that is to destroy the money savings
(acquired via a lower energy bill for machine #1), so that machine #2
has no funds available for its turn on.

You ignore the point that there is no necessary connection between
energy consumption and carbon emission.

I also ignored that it rained this morning. The specific topic was:
what can energy efficiency (and local conservation) do and what can it
not do? Of course switching sources can alter emissions -- why do you
think I said exactly that long ago? The point wasn't even in dispute,
as best I knew.

Any effective approach to
minimising global warming has to involve switching the bulk of our
energy production over to carbon neutral sources. At the moment, this
would effectively double the price of energy, which would be painful,
but perfectly surviveable, and we're probably far enough from the
brink that we can afford to spread the price rise over a few years.

You have no idea how survivable such a thing is. There could be
political unrest as a result, wars could start. The possibilities of
a major shock like that are unpredictable. I don't trust social
engineering, or people who claim to know the answers to such
intractable problems. I didn't and don't trust GWB's engineering of
society in Iraq, for example.

That -- in this simplistic example -- is what I'm talking about when I
say "wealth reducing" or "poverty inducing." IOW, new wealth that
would have otherwise came into being is destroyed by policy. As I
have pointed out since the beginning, this method will almost
assuredly result in reduced emissions, at least for awhile anyway.

As opposed to existing wealth that is going to be destroyed by
unrestrained global warming - New Orleans comes to mind.

LOL. New Orleans was created and destroyed by Hurricane Guvmint. It
was not a "weather disaster."

Less fuel is burnt and more useful work is done with less
waste heat. In the steam age it was the search for better fuel
efficiency that drove engineers and scientists to formulate the laws
of thermodynamics. They still hold good today.

Sure it holds locally, who said otherwise? Meanwhile, more efficent
machines never led to a lower aggregate energy consumption; it was
actually the reverse, the counterintuitive result. Why? You think it
is a thermodynamic and engineering problem. It categorically isn't
such a problem, and solutions based on that approach will inevitably
have dismal results. That is what I have been trying to drive home.
Or even if they have results attributed to them, it will appear to
have the results for reasons other than that which you believe.

You do seem to miss the point that energy efficiency is a minor part
of the package - the major part is the move away from burning carbon
as the default mechanism for generating energy.

I think the point is that you think energy efficiency will reduce
global warming. It won't. I was missing "the major part" for the
same reason I missed talking about it raining this morning.

Oh well,... maybe it rained because of SUV's and global warming, so I
should have mentioned it.

You miss the point that more efficient machines aren't attractive
primarily because they reduce energy consumption,...

Dude, people claim that more efficient machines lower aggregate energy
consumption and thus the aggregate carbon footprint. I have heard it
claimed many many times -- not just here and now.

And it is not just "primarily;" energy efficiency does *nothing* to
reduce emissions, ceteris paribus. If anything, energy efficiency
implies a growth in energy consumption: as efficiency goes up,
productivity goes up, people get richer, and have more to spend on
consumer goods and investment in future (and "better") capital goods
that will, yes, raise energy consumption again and again and again.
This is what has actually happened through history. Basic economic
law says human wants can never be completely satiated. It is an
upwards spiral, regardless of the source of energy, or what transient
downward shocks policy can indeed cause.

...but more because they make the move to more
expensive carbon neutral energy sources
less painful.

Maybe some people don't want to switch, or feel any of that sort of
pain at all.

You have gotten fascinated by the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, and lost
sight of the primary aim, which is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
- which does not entail any kind of permanent reduction in energy
production or consumption.

I haven't lost sight of it at all. I wasn't talking about it.

It is true that energy efficiency will not reduce energy consumption
in any permanent way. I've said that several times. One of my points
was to get you to agree with me on that, and I'm happy to see you do.

In fact, if we covered the deserts with
solar cells or solar power plants, ...

Maybe people like deserts. Isn't that what global warming has to
offer?


.

Relevant Pages

  • H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)
    ... Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, ... you will have to have the energy efficiency of your ... EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: OT: How a Flawed 2004 S.E.C. Decision Contributed to Present Morass
    ... Americans that we had to conserve, conserve, conserve. ... Conservation of energy is just fine. ... Energy efficiency is just fine, ... Basically, it uses reflectors instead of solar panels to concentrate light/heat to a central point, where a device turns that heat into energy. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lectro bike price drop
    ... It's intention is to make all forms of energy so f'ing ... Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, ... energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. ... energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... aggregate carbon footprint, ceteris paribus. ... energy used in one place by using even more in some other location. ... energy consumption and carbon emission. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Got Krygystan?
    ... Krygystan's government has said it will not go back on its decision to ... doubling renewable energy production and renovate ... $6.9 billion in local government energy efficiency block grants ... There's also considerable funding for water infrastructure projects: ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)