Forward Looking Statements: COP 21 Climate Talks
If you have ever seen any company’s press release or similar kind of announcement, the term “forward looking statement” will be quite familiar to you. It is a phrase that allows the originating party to claim nearly any size or kind of a potential future benefit without any obligation to ever meeting it at all.
Indeed, without such legal disclaimers, many companies would quickly be sued into financial ruin by the ever present litigious members of society.
However, there appear to be numerous exceptions to the rule as well. In particular, I am referring to claims involving next to “free energy” that “will” power future generations’ electric power requirements, etc.
Case in Point
H.J. Schellnhuber, founder and top gun at the German PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), just published a 770 page tome with the title “Selbstverbrennung,” and with the sub-title “Die fatale Dreiecksbeziehung zwischen Klima, Mensch und Kohlenstoff“ that translates to “Self-immolation, the fatal three-corner relationship between climate, mankind, and carbon.”
What the author appears to mean by that is that the world’s climate is heating up to result in a heat death, all due to the consumption of fossil fuels and the concomitant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Now, that surely must be a “forward looking statement” of gargantuan proportion. Just another few ppm (parts per million) of that atmospheric trace gas CO2 (currently around 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in the atmosphere) and, as Schellnhuber and his disciples at the PIK claim, the earth is on an irreversible path to this “Selbstverbrennung“ unless we stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas (a process he terms “decarbonisation”) and revert back to the good old days of our hunter/gatherer “Neanderthal” forefathers of eons ago and produce all our energy requirements from wind and solar sources.
COP-21
Of course, Schellnhuber’s book appeared just in time for the current COP-21 conference in Paris, where the world’s anti-carbon activists hope to get agreements on equally gargantuan wealth transfers from the western democracies to other countries. Such “climate reparations” are to start with annual payments of $100 billion and are expected to escalate from there by leaps and bounds.
Of course, illustrious people, such as Schellnhuber and like-minded apostles of the anti-CO2-religion may be exempted from such restrictions. After all, quod licet Iovi non licet bovi, (commonly translated as “Gods may do what cattle may not”) like the ancient Romans used to say. Surely, you wouldn’t want the “climate-pope” (a common nickname for Schellnhuber) to have to freeze in the dark — no, that’s just for the common folks out there, like you and me.
What’s really frightening in all that claptrap is the total lack of understanding of the orders of magnitude involved in the energy requirements. Let’s look at some actual numbers.
Energy, Sources and Use
Excluding hydro (water) power, 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the world’s energy requirement is met by fossil and nuclear power resources. All other “renewables” (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, etc.) sources account for approximately 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} only. However, the anti-carbon proponents are hell-bent on telling everyone that the world can change to a nearly 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} “renewable” energy generation in a decade or two. This is simply a preposterous claim, entirely devoid of any understanding of actual requirements and the timing of such needs. Unless I’m totally mistaken, I’d think you want that electric power when you flip the switch for it, not just when the sun is shining or the wind blowing.
Some people think that the timing discrepancy of energy generation (like from wind and solar systems) and energy requirement (like for heating and lighting) can be overcome with large scale water reservoirs at appropriate height or individual consumers’ small scale home-style batteries and the like. Perhaps they ought to do some simple math about the electric energy storage.
Electric Power Storage
A typical household on this continent uses in the order of 5,000 to 10,000 kWh of electricity per year or, on average, 20-40 kWh per day. So, for example, a 3kWh battery at your home could possibly store 1/10th of your daily need. At present, such a 3 kWh device would cost you in the order of $5,000 plus a similar amount for wiring, converter and power regulators that may not last beyond a few years. To get all your electricity needs, just for one day, you’d have to multiply that several-fold, depending on your requirements. Please note: that’s BEFORE you re-charge your electric car battery which would need another 30+ kWh per day or so.
If your energy source (say, wind or sunshine) does not produce much for a several days, or even some weeks on occasion, you’d need a multiple of all that battery capacity again. For example, for a daily consumption of 30 kWh, your storage device cost for a 10-day production-drought would come to 10x10x ($5,000) = $500,000. Then add your (free-electricity) e-car energy needs to that and you’ll arrive at a cool $1,000,000.
Surely, that’s what every house/car owner is looking forward to invest in such schemes forthwith. But even then, you may still run out of “juice” at some time and may have to take some time off.
The Selbstverbrennung Nonsense
Oh, I nearly forgot to mention what U. Kulke writes in his review of Schellnhuber’s Sebstverbrennung’s tome in the daily Die Welt: “… a mixture of melancholy and mania.”
As far as I’m concerned, Kulke’s latter term is still a benign description of the Selbstverbrennung drivel. Please note, that’s not a forward looking statement.
Trackback from your site.