Ecoinvent, the world’s largest database on the environmental impact of renewables, has no data from China, even though it makes most of the world's solar panels
Uighur slave labor, Congolese child labor, and dead whales are good for ESG! Wind turbines and solar panels are magical devices that require no carbon emissions to produce and maintain. You must support The Current Thing Company to boost your ESG score: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/current-thing-company-yuri-sharktank
The faith placed in computer models is credulous and obscures the danger in their reliance on critical decision making. Multi variable models using incomplete, inaccurate, estimated or even false data are more of a threat than blind prognostications. This absolute blind faith in our scientific communities ability to predict the future is absurd.
The Covid ‘modelling’ out of Imperial College demonstrates your comment. As Ferguson’s ‘science’ informed the decision making of many leaders and public health institutions at the earliest stages of the pandemic, and was wildly erroneous, we marched (ran) down a very dangerous path. Climate change looks to be doing the same.
Garbage In = Garbage Out. I like how they typically publish book length studies with endless charts, tables and pages of jargon that is largely unintelligible to all but a long, hard expensive detailed analysis. But as usual a detailed analysis will reveal that their conclusions are dependent on invalid, even ridiculous assumptions that are buried away somewhere in the middle of their book, in fine print or one or two lines of comments.
Mark Jacobson's studies are renowned for that sort of chicanery. Not mentioning that his study assumes a giant "copper plate" grid for all of the USA. Free transmission with zero losses from one corner of the country to the other. Unlimited hydro storage capacity and rivers that can be flooded or run dry on a daily basis. And hydro plants with massively inflated peak output.
Some Debunking of Mark Jacobson's Disneyland Teleportation Device, Green Leap Forward:
Terrific sleuthing here. I hope Mariutti continues the fight. Fascinating insight and sadly not surprising. Scientific omission, manipulation, solving to the desired outcome it just seems to be the state of science. Not to mention the merger of government and science; I have long maintained that at the intersection of government and name your field, e.g. Science, lie corruption and stupidity. Lately I've begun to wonder just how many people in positions of power and influence are in fact paid for and controlled by China. Might the US President being part of this contingent be a clue as to how large the numbers may be. Just saying...
Excellent reporting. Hopefully this will get the wide circulation it deserves...
So, if I'm recapping correctly, most solar component production occurs in high-polluting China, which does not offer accurate (or perhaps any) data on said production's carbon intensity. Instead, the data gatekeepers use much cleaner estimates as if that production occurred in Europe. Where do they get their data? Oh, that's a secret - it's none of your business. How far off could their data be? Orders of magnitude that might generate a radical rethinking of renewables based on their actual carbon footprints. What are we talking about? Trillions of dollars of subsidies going to major players and friends of well-placed politicians, and coercion of the energy uses of citizens. Yep, sounds like business as usual on Planet Earth.
Why should this report surprise anyone. Scientism is a canard held fast by lemmings hiding behind PhDs. Net zero, "green energy" and all of the other shorthand descriptions of endless, clean energy are totems of religious fervor without any basis in reality. Any expectations that the supposed experts demanding governments and consumers shovel money into a bag with the words "low carbon energy source" on it will reveal honest data is absurd. They cannot do so because the self anointed saviours of the planet would be exposed as frauds. Musk is as honest as any green energy proponent I've ever heard and even he ignores the reality that every scheme outside of nuclear relies on a vast increase in mining to create this new utopia. And he ignores end of life issues of solar, wind, and battery storage as if it's a simple fix.
Every decision involves at least one tradeoff. In the case of solar and wind, the tradeoffs are hidden from view by the same operating principle that undergirded cigarette company research - lie and cheat and hope no one notices.
Funny Musk powers the giant SpaceX complex in Boca Chica, Texas with diesel generators. Located in sunny Texas with lots of flat open land and Tesla's huge battery & solar production, why not Solar/Batteries?
Hoping a similar critique of the push to EV's appears soon. We are also kidding ourselves that this is virtuous and greener than a fuel efficient ICE vehicle. Crazy subsidies to automotive industry diverts much needed tax dollars from the services they should be funding. Not to mention the slave labour involved in the critical minerals industry.
It is actually much worse than that. Adding fluctuating solar and wind to the electrical grid makes it much less efficient at producing electricity. The electrical grid runs at maximum efficiency when most generation is high efficiency, high capital cost baseload power Nuclear, Hydro, high cost CCGT not low cost OCGT, high cost supercritical coal not low cost conventional coal. Wind & solar favor low cost, fuel guzzling OCGT & diesel generation to mirror the wind & solar variation. That means high overall emissions.
In fact the Bentek study of the Texas & Colorado big Wind Power expansions showed they caused emissions to INCREASE rather then the theoretical decrease expected.
How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado & Texas Energy Markets:
Other inefficiencies forced upon the grid by wind & solar include:
-- idling big coal & gas power plants when wind or solar is low (Germany disconnects the generators from the grid so it can falsely ignore those emissions)
-- running big thermal plants at less than full output which is inefficient
-- large line losses from the highly peaking supply on wind & solar long distance transmission lines
-- overbuild (excess generation when not needed) i.e. wind & solar both peak in spring when hydro also peaks and electricity demand is minimum
-- curtailment of operating low emissions nuclear/hydro plants
-- rooftop solar in sub-optimal locations (i.e. poor alignment, shade from trees & buildings)
-- cycling inefficiencies
-- high energy cost from needing a duplicate power grid
-- low EROI (energy return on invested) for wind & solar
-- high material inputs of wind & solar ~20X conventional fossil, nuclear hydro per unit energy produced
-- EV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus low cost baseload generation supply. Using nighttime baseload electricity for EV charging increases the efficiency of the grid. Using daytime solar or random wind peaks reduces grid efficiency for EV charging.
-- Energy storage losses. Battery storage from 10-30% round trip efficiency losses. H2 storage as much as 70% efficiency losses. And high additional energy & material inputs energy losses. An EROI too low to be physically capable of replacing fossil
-- negative pricing when there is surplus wind or solar causing electricity dumping.
These massive inefficiencies of wind & solar are confirmed by a survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times, which shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization. An expensive total waste of capital and material resources:
Poor Enrico Mariutti, another idealist getting the scales shot from his eyes.
Of course the climate industrial complex (of which the censorship industrial complex is but a part, climate is $$$$$) does not want accurate accounting.
Production moved to China because it’s CHEAP, it’s cheap because they use cheap coal fired electricity.
Despite the lies of RE being cheapest.
So they get cheaper solar panels so they can talk ever louder about the lie of renewables being the cheapest electricity.
If they build the panels in the west the cost quadruples but the emissions drop.
It’s all a circular lie and they don’t want to knock the trolley off the wheels, too much money at play.
It’s why the CCP bought the liberal party of canada and works to keep them in power, $$$$$ green bs transition, money for all except us.
It’s why the liberals desperately cover up the Chinese interference in our elections, why they immediately played the race card in early 2020 when it was correctly suggested that Covid came from the Wuhan lab, something that is now 99/% likely.
This analysis ignores one thing: CO2 emissions numbers are a made up game. If CO2 really mattered, Diesel engines wouldn’t be vilified as they are, for example. London’s ULEZ allows for gas powered V8 engines from 18 years ago, but not diesels from before about 2014. Guess which one emits 10x the CO2 than the other.
So true. And greenies choose to ignore that energy source as predominant in the mining of minerals used and production of panels and turbines. We live in a clown world of non-researchers peddling made up.science funded by vested interests.
Labour recently losing safe seats. Even Starmer telling Kahn to shut it up. All of London fed up with the eco-terrorists denying them the right to move freely throughout the city. The Green Revolt has started. Not a day too soon.
“With critics like Mariutti being shut out of the debate, science, he says, “is behaving like a religion.” Patrons of the science are giddy bureaucrats charged with convincing taxpayers across the globe to hand over trillions in funding for the feted clean transition.” 🎯
Uighur slave labor, Congolese child labor, and dead whales are good for ESG! Wind turbines and solar panels are magical devices that require no carbon emissions to produce and maintain. You must support The Current Thing Company to boost your ESG score: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/current-thing-company-yuri-sharktank
The faith placed in computer models is credulous and obscures the danger in their reliance on critical decision making. Multi variable models using incomplete, inaccurate, estimated or even false data are more of a threat than blind prognostications. This absolute blind faith in our scientific communities ability to predict the future is absurd.
The Covid ‘modelling’ out of Imperial College demonstrates your comment. As Ferguson’s ‘science’ informed the decision making of many leaders and public health institutions at the earliest stages of the pandemic, and was wildly erroneous, we marched (ran) down a very dangerous path. Climate change looks to be doing the same.
Garbage In = Garbage Out. I like how they typically publish book length studies with endless charts, tables and pages of jargon that is largely unintelligible to all but a long, hard expensive detailed analysis. But as usual a detailed analysis will reveal that their conclusions are dependent on invalid, even ridiculous assumptions that are buried away somewhere in the middle of their book, in fine print or one or two lines of comments.
Mark Jacobson's studies are renowned for that sort of chicanery. Not mentioning that his study assumes a giant "copper plate" grid for all of the USA. Free transmission with zero losses from one corner of the country to the other. Unlimited hydro storage capacity and rivers that can be flooded or run dry on a daily basis. And hydro plants with massively inflated peak output.
Some Debunking of Mark Jacobson's Disneyland Teleportation Device, Green Leap Forward:
https://www.greenleapforward.wtf/p/wwbs
100% Renewables Plan Has ‘Significant Shortcomings,’ Say Climate and Energy Experts:
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
A new study calls out the assumptions in a leading renewable energy roadmap developed by Mark Jacobson:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/100-percent-renewables-plan-has-significant-shortcomings-say-experts#gs.t1PKtds
A computer model is a STATEMENT OF A HYPOTHESIS. It is NEVER proof of ANYTHING.
Terrific sleuthing here. I hope Mariutti continues the fight. Fascinating insight and sadly not surprising. Scientific omission, manipulation, solving to the desired outcome it just seems to be the state of science. Not to mention the merger of government and science; I have long maintained that at the intersection of government and name your field, e.g. Science, lie corruption and stupidity. Lately I've begun to wonder just how many people in positions of power and influence are in fact paid for and controlled by China. Might the US President being part of this contingent be a clue as to how large the numbers may be. Just saying...
Excellent reporting. Hopefully this will get the wide circulation it deserves...
So, if I'm recapping correctly, most solar component production occurs in high-polluting China, which does not offer accurate (or perhaps any) data on said production's carbon intensity. Instead, the data gatekeepers use much cleaner estimates as if that production occurred in Europe. Where do they get their data? Oh, that's a secret - it's none of your business. How far off could their data be? Orders of magnitude that might generate a radical rethinking of renewables based on their actual carbon footprints. What are we talking about? Trillions of dollars of subsidies going to major players and friends of well-placed politicians, and coercion of the energy uses of citizens. Yep, sounds like business as usual on Planet Earth.
Why should this report surprise anyone. Scientism is a canard held fast by lemmings hiding behind PhDs. Net zero, "green energy" and all of the other shorthand descriptions of endless, clean energy are totems of religious fervor without any basis in reality. Any expectations that the supposed experts demanding governments and consumers shovel money into a bag with the words "low carbon energy source" on it will reveal honest data is absurd. They cannot do so because the self anointed saviours of the planet would be exposed as frauds. Musk is as honest as any green energy proponent I've ever heard and even he ignores the reality that every scheme outside of nuclear relies on a vast increase in mining to create this new utopia. And he ignores end of life issues of solar, wind, and battery storage as if it's a simple fix.
Every decision involves at least one tradeoff. In the case of solar and wind, the tradeoffs are hidden from view by the same operating principle that undergirded cigarette company research - lie and cheat and hope no one notices.
Funny Musk powers the giant SpaceX complex in Boca Chica, Texas with diesel generators. Located in sunny Texas with lots of flat open land and Tesla's huge battery & solar production, why not Solar/Batteries?
Hoping a similar critique of the push to EV's appears soon. We are also kidding ourselves that this is virtuous and greener than a fuel efficient ICE vehicle. Crazy subsidies to automotive industry diverts much needed tax dollars from the services they should be funding. Not to mention the slave labour involved in the critical minerals industry.
Sharing this article broadly. Thank you Public for doing the work the legacy media no longer has the capacity or moral compass to do anymore.
It is actually much worse than that. Adding fluctuating solar and wind to the electrical grid makes it much less efficient at producing electricity. The electrical grid runs at maximum efficiency when most generation is high efficiency, high capital cost baseload power Nuclear, Hydro, high cost CCGT not low cost OCGT, high cost supercritical coal not low cost conventional coal. Wind & solar favor low cost, fuel guzzling OCGT & diesel generation to mirror the wind & solar variation. That means high overall emissions.
In fact the Bentek study of the Texas & Colorado big Wind Power expansions showed they caused emissions to INCREASE rather then the theoretical decrease expected.
How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado & Texas Energy Markets:
https://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
Other inefficiencies forced upon the grid by wind & solar include:
-- idling big coal & gas power plants when wind or solar is low (Germany disconnects the generators from the grid so it can falsely ignore those emissions)
-- running big thermal plants at less than full output which is inefficient
-- large line losses from the highly peaking supply on wind & solar long distance transmission lines
-- overbuild (excess generation when not needed) i.e. wind & solar both peak in spring when hydro also peaks and electricity demand is minimum
-- curtailment of operating low emissions nuclear/hydro plants
-- rooftop solar in sub-optimal locations (i.e. poor alignment, shade from trees & buildings)
-- cycling inefficiencies
-- high energy cost from needing a duplicate power grid
-- low EROI (energy return on invested) for wind & solar
-- high material inputs of wind & solar ~20X conventional fossil, nuclear hydro per unit energy produced
-- EV charging in the most inefficient method = fast charging stations in the daytime when grid is already at max output rather than at home charging at a slow rate overnight when there is surplus low cost baseload generation supply. Using nighttime baseload electricity for EV charging increases the efficiency of the grid. Using daytime solar or random wind peaks reduces grid efficiency for EV charging.
-- Energy storage losses. Battery storage from 10-30% round trip efficiency losses. H2 storage as much as 70% efficiency losses. And high additional energy & material inputs energy losses. An EROI too low to be physically capable of replacing fossil
-- negative pricing when there is surplus wind or solar causing electricity dumping.
These massive inefficiencies of wind & solar are confirmed by a survey of 68 nations over the past 52 years done by Environmental Progress and duplicated by the New York Times, which shows conventional hydro was quite successful at decarbonization, nuclear energy was also very successful and both wind and solar show no correlation between grid penetration and decarbonization. An expensive total waste of capital and material resources:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/11/7/the-power-to-decarbonize
Poor Enrico Mariutti, another idealist getting the scales shot from his eyes.
Of course the climate industrial complex (of which the censorship industrial complex is but a part, climate is $$$$$) does not want accurate accounting.
Production moved to China because it’s CHEAP, it’s cheap because they use cheap coal fired electricity.
Despite the lies of RE being cheapest.
So they get cheaper solar panels so they can talk ever louder about the lie of renewables being the cheapest electricity.
If they build the panels in the west the cost quadruples but the emissions drop.
It’s all a circular lie and they don’t want to knock the trolley off the wheels, too much money at play.
It’s why the CCP bought the liberal party of canada and works to keep them in power, $$$$$ green bs transition, money for all except us.
It’s why the liberals desperately cover up the Chinese interference in our elections, why they immediately played the race card in early 2020 when it was correctly suggested that Covid came from the Wuhan lab, something that is now 99/% likely.
This analysis ignores one thing: CO2 emissions numbers are a made up game. If CO2 really mattered, Diesel engines wouldn’t be vilified as they are, for example. London’s ULEZ allows for gas powered V8 engines from 18 years ago, but not diesels from before about 2014. Guess which one emits 10x the CO2 than the other.
So true. And greenies choose to ignore that energy source as predominant in the mining of minerals used and production of panels and turbines. We live in a clown world of non-researchers peddling made up.science funded by vested interests.
Labour recently losing safe seats. Even Starmer telling Kahn to shut it up. All of London fed up with the eco-terrorists denying them the right to move freely throughout the city. The Green Revolt has started. Not a day too soon.
I appreciate this information. Great reporting. May we come out on the good end of this.
Fantastic work
And the hits keep on coming.
It’s all about the Benjamins.
“With critics like Mariutti being shut out of the debate, science, he says, “is behaving like a religion.” Patrons of the science are giddy bureaucrats charged with convincing taxpayers across the globe to hand over trillions in funding for the feted clean transition.” 🎯
It is also well known that China under-reports its emissions, especially Coal emissions. i.e.:
China underreporting coal consumption by up to 17%, data suggests:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/china-underreporting-coal-consumption-by-up-to-17-data-suggests