Two Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics, have spent four years (fully funded by Google) to examine and solve the so-called problem of the so-called renewable energy future.
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …(Source:UK Register)
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach. (Source: IEEE)
Now that we’ve got credentialed engineers backed by serious private industry cash (Google-worth kabillions) saying that after four years of intensive research, that the current recommended ‘solution’ to the stated problem can’t possibly solve that problem, how longer before we get them to realize that the real problem is that there is no problem?
No matter how much we spend we can’t seem to find a way to prevent unicorn emissions from sullying up the biosphere.
The Spectrum article, titled ‘What would it take to reverse climate change‘ might shine light on one problem–economy crushing costs for no gain–but it also includes the words, in all seriousness, scientists, carbon, and ‘looming danger.’ And it assumes the same scientists using those words have no fiscal interest in producing results that facilitate funding to solve the problem they claim to see.
The problem with this scenario is that there are also scientists who have no fiscal interest that seem certain that the same carbon does not present a looming danger, including scientists who are not paid by political entities with a partisan interest in both the infrastructure projects the Google engineers just panned and the larger design of top down control of the entire energy industry by government.
When you Start from a false premise…
Koningstein and Fork’s Spectrum article explains how the Google project, based on partisan assumptions by fools like James Hansen, tried to come up with a renewable scenario that could derive the environmentalists utopian energy fantasy, but despite parsing the ‘all of the above’ green options deemed by ‘experts’ as “renewable” (with the notable exclusion of Nuclear and Hydro–which tells you all you need know about something called “tunnel vision”) the carbon footprint (cost) to create and operate this infrastructure was not just impossibly expensive (not just to create but in actual end-user costs), the effort would create at least as much “carbon” as simply using cheap and abundance sources we have now.
Note to Democrats: Google Greenies just told you you are wasting taxpayer dollars for nothing.
The even sadder truth about the Google experts spectrum article emissions is that they have no answer to the non-problem except to insist there is a problem because someone from the government says as much. That there is no net carbon benefit to your entire energy agenda. That all we are doing is wasting money for the privilege of suppressing the economy and productivity by charging people several hundred times more for their electricity.
So the real moral of this story is that even after four years spending Google’s money, engineers couldn’t figure out that progressive energy policy is about finding a way to control the energy economy and everyone who uses it and nothing at all to do with reducing carbon.