The "renewables"craze wastes materials for no significant benefit to humanity
Pretending CO2 causes climate change prompts a lot of poor decision making
In the debate over the economics of energy sources, one factor is undeniable. Oil, gas and coal require a lot less consumption of materials than “renewables”. For those not familiar with the process by which many of these materials are created, concrete is a major source of CO2, steel requires blast furnaces which are large emitters, glass requires furnaces which are emitters, copper and aluminum are mined with environmental damage, and plastics are made from oil & gas. We have better uses for concrete and steel than windmills with housing shortages a worldwide phenomenon and plenty of under developed countries that lack adequate roads, bridges and hospitals.
If you accept the reality that CO2 cannot and does not cause global warming, the use of solar and wind becomes an absurdity. Reality is readily demonstrated.
Hydro makes sense not only because any CO2 it causes is harmless but also because it is a safe, reliable and long term low cost source of electric power. Geothermal is local and makes sense in some areas but is useless for world power needs.
Coal, Biomass, Nuclear and Natural Gas are all reliable sources of energy, with nuclear a clear long term choice despite its risks of melt downs. The three major nuclear catastophes since it first became an energy source suggest the risks are non-zero so nuclear should be used sparingly and with caution.
Coal, oil and gas remain the most economical long term low cost and reliable sources of the energy needed by humanity and its economic development. Face facts, all the leftist nonsense about “climate change” is destructive to society everywhere.
I agree with most of what you say except I dont believe there is any long term alternative to nuclear. Coal, oil and NGas useage is at all time highs so the world of physics agree with you. You didnt mention another source of energy, wood which Britain (and I image others) import in large quantities from Can and the US to burn, justifying its use since its renewable. As most know, burning wood may smell nice but it does produce some not so nice outputs.
Since there are hundreds of billions spent on the narrative I dont see it going away anytime soon, its just too much money in too many highly placed pockets.
I was a skeptic until 2009 and a denier ever since, I always thought the narrative would collapse 8-15 years ago but its stronger than ever and to many people its as true gravity. Follow the money, I had to laugh recently my ex son in law who was a con man for lack of a better word(always pushing a get rich scheme, costing anyone he could get involved 100's of K each) recently got involved, so he is traveling around the world getting paid by one of these organizations promoting climate change, I will say its probably the first thing that he is pushing that he believes:)
The most recent inflation reduction act is really a Global warming money bag, politicians love it, easy to get outlandish amounts of money approved and if anyone complains they dont care about their kids, antiscience deniers. Similar arguments are used for covid shots etc etc
I agree however I would push back slightly about the higher risks of a nuclear reactor melt down. They are very safe, the biggest reason it’s not in major use is the over regulation required to construct a nuclear reactor powered generation plant. I really appreciate your articles and your common sense!