6 ms·

There’s no such thing as clean energy

14 points by georgecmu 6y ago

thatfrenchguy 6y ago
That review is made by folks with no direct work experience on the topic and are climate skeptics: Ronan Connolly: https://ronanconnollyscience.com https://ronanconnollyscience.com | https://globalwarmingsolved.com https://globalwarmingsolved.com Coilín ÓhAiseadha: Department of Public Health, Health Service Executive, Dr Steevens’ Hospital, D08 W2A8 Dublin 8, Ireland Gerré Quinn: Centre for Molecular Biosciences, Ulster University, Coleraine BT521SA, Northern Ireland, UK Interesting new strategy here folks.
- aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
  Do you feel like you have refuted the actual contents of the article ?
  - thatfrenchguy 6y ago
    No, because that wasn't the point of my comment ;-)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jackdeansmith 6y ago
This is the organization pushing this "research": https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html I'll leave the hopefully scientifically literate crowd here to see how reputable they are. I skimmed the paper, it seems to be making a "there's no free lunch"/"renewables aren't magic free energy" so let's just keep using fossil fuels argument. None of the authors are economists, physicists, or climate scientists, yet they make assertions that are very much the domain of those experts. I expect better from the HN crowd.
- aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
  Actually Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry/polymer physics, has has published many "Climate Science" articles, such as : - Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China - Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–2018): a comparison between climate models and observations - Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records - How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment And much more, see: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ
  - jackdeansmith 6y ago
    He runs this website which claims that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics. Calling him anything more than a crank is extremely generous
    - FirstAuthor 6y ago
      Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing. Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinformation-why-were-vulnerable/ https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - FirstAuthor 6y ago
      This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN. Have you read the welcome page? "The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ... "What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."
gigel82 6y ago
Why are they not upfront about who is funding the research? A couple of Google searches later lead to interesting finds: try "Ronan Connolly Koch" or "Connolly Willie Soon funding". I'm not saying that taking money from oil&coal companies (and hiding it) necessarily implies that the research is biased, I'm just saying to take it with a big grain of salt. But even with all of that, if you look at the charts they still clearly show the total impact (direct + indirect) of solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil.
- aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
  > Why are they not upfront about who is funding the research? They don't need to be upfront about their funding because they know it's the first thing that ecologists will search on google to build an ad personam as we can see in the comments here /s At least, someone's paying research that does not go in the mainstream direction, so we can be thankful for that which protects us from an unilateral debate: given that politics fund the mainstream research with the IPCC. > The total impact (direct + indirect) of solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil. Same goes for ROI: solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil.
  - FirstAuthor 6y ago
    We didn't need incentives to find what we found by reading the research. We reviewed the literature very thoroughly, seeking divergent opinions on every aspect, and we have presented our findings transparently. We recommend you read the full paper for yourself, and dig into the references where necessary, so that you can make up your own mind. We think you will find it very readable and thought-provoking. Enjoy!
- FirstAuthor 6y ago
  I am the first author on this paper. Nobody paid me anything to write this paper. In fact, it cost me money, because I had to take time off to work on it. I'll tell you what to take with a pinch of salt: allegations that the authors are taking money from vested interests. We are not. Rather than searching for spurious grounds to discredit the authors, I recommend you read the paper for yourself. With the help of my co-authors, I searched the literature meticulously to investigate every aspect of the review, and we have cited our sources in the usual way - 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. By all means, read critically. Take all the research in this field with a heaped spoon of salt, because there may be bias in every direction. But there's no escaping the need to read the research literature if you want to assess the evidence for yourself. I hope you find it as intriguing as I did.
tommykins 6y ago
Holy Moly. For the first time ever I'm nearly an expert on something on HN. There's quite a few arguments in here which run the gamut from 'interesting point that people who work on clean energy think about a lot' to 'very close to, if not a straw man argument' There are some really interesting micro-biome studies that show there are local effects that are caused by wind turbines and solar arrays, I don't think I've ever seen a study which has said that the amount of carbon produced by these local changes in biomes is anywhere near the carbon saved by the move to renewables. The REE exploration problem is also a good point on current EVs, but there's a good chance that new batteries will have no Cobalt in them at all (as an aside, the reason that companies are looking to migrate from it has little to do with the scarcity, but more to do with the fact that it's largely mined in very, very poor ways, I'm looking at you, Glencore). The point about intermittency and "Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to" is not an overly well made one, there are a bunch of ways around this and it's one of the biggest challenges being faced today in the industry. HDR, battery technology have come a long way in the last little bit. Anyways, take the article with a grain of salt as you should do with everything.
- aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
  > I don't think I've ever seen a study which has said that the amount of carbon produced by these local changes in biomes is anywhere near the carbon saved by the move to renewables. Right, but I think you have seen a lot of propaganda about wind & solar being "clean energy" when in reality it's an inflated expectation. In reality, we're still measuring the negative impact of these offshore wind farms on the climate. > there are a bunch of ways around this and it's one of the biggest challenges being faced today in the industry I'm non native sorry, but confused as of how this could be "one of the biggest challenges" if "there are a bunch of ways around this". > Anyways, take the article with a grain of salt as you should do with everything. The article bases on what's happening now and not on what might happen when the battery technology will pass a major milestone at industrial level or whatnot. I think the essence of the article is that renewables are not the silver bullet many hoped it would be. We seem falling from the top of the "peak of inflated expectations" (from the Hype Cycle).
lazylizard 6y ago
ok but there surely is "cleaner energy"?
- FirstAuthor 6y ago
  Yes, there is cleaner energy. For example, natural gas is cleaner than coal, and nuclear is cleaner than biomass. See Table 2.

14 points by georgecmu 6y ago

That review is made by folks with no direct work experience on the topic and are climate skeptics: Ronan Connolly: https://ronanconnollyscience.com https://ronanconnollyscience.com | https://globalwarmingsolved.com https://globalwarmingsolved.com Coilín ÓhAiseadha: Department of Public Health, Health Service Executive, Dr Steevens’ Hospital, D08 W2A8 Dublin 8, Ireland Gerré Quinn: Centre for Molecular Biosciences, Ulster University, Coleraine BT521SA, Northern Ireland, UK Interesting new strategy here folks.

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
Do you feel like you have refuted the actual contents of the article ?
- thatfrenchguy 6y ago
  No, because that wasn't the point of my comment ;-)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jackdeansmith 6y ago

This is the organization pushing this "research": https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html https://www.ceres-science.com/index.html I'll leave the hopefully scientifically literate crowd here to see how reputable they are. I skimmed the paper, it seems to be making a "there's no free lunch"/"renewables aren't magic free energy" so let's just keep using fossil fuels argument. None of the authors are economists, physicists, or climate scientists, yet they make assertions that are very much the domain of those experts. I expect better from the HN crowd.

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
Actually Ronan Connolly has a PhD in computational chemistry/polymer physics, has has published many "Climate Science" articles, such as : - Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China - Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–2018): a comparison between climate models and observations - Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records - How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment And much more, see: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ
- jackdeansmith 6y ago
  He runs this website which claims that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming: https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics https://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/#physics. Calling him anything more than a crank is extremely generous
  - FirstAuthor 6y ago
    Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing. Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinformation-why-were-vulnerable/ https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - FirstAuthor 6y ago
    This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN. Have you read the welcome page? "The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ... "What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."

gigel82 6y ago

Why are they not upfront about who is funding the research? A couple of Google searches later lead to interesting finds: try "Ronan Connolly Koch" or "Connolly Willie Soon funding". I'm not saying that taking money from oil&coal companies (and hiding it) necessarily implies that the research is biased, I'm just saying to take it with a big grain of salt. But even with all of that, if you look at the charts they still clearly show the total impact (direct + indirect) of solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil.

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
> Why are they not upfront about who is funding the research? They don't need to be upfront about their funding because they know it's the first thing that ecologists will search on google to build an ad personam as we can see in the comments here /s At least, someone's paying research that does not go in the mainstream direction, so we can be thankful for that which protects us from an unilateral debate: given that politics fund the mainstream research with the IPCC. > The total impact (direct + indirect) of solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil. Same goes for ROI: solar and wind is an order of magnitude lower than coal and oil.
- FirstAuthor 6y ago
  We didn't need incentives to find what we found by reading the research. We reviewed the literature very thoroughly, seeking divergent opinions on every aspect, and we have presented our findings transparently. We recommend you read the full paper for yourself, and dig into the references where necessary, so that you can make up your own mind. We think you will find it very readable and thought-provoking. Enjoy!
FirstAuthor 6y ago
I am the first author on this paper. Nobody paid me anything to write this paper. In fact, it cost me money, because I had to take time off to work on it. I'll tell you what to take with a pinch of salt: allegations that the authors are taking money from vested interests. We are not. Rather than searching for spurious grounds to discredit the authors, I recommend you read the paper for yourself. With the help of my co-authors, I searched the literature meticulously to investigate every aspect of the review, and we have cited our sources in the usual way - 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. By all means, read critically. Take all the research in this field with a heaped spoon of salt, because there may be bias in every direction. But there's no escaping the need to read the research literature if you want to assess the evidence for yourself. I hope you find it as intriguing as I did.

tommykins 6y ago

Holy Moly. For the first time ever I'm nearly an expert on something on HN. There's quite a few arguments in here which run the gamut from 'interesting point that people who work on clean energy think about a lot' to 'very close to, if not a straw man argument' There are some really interesting micro-biome studies that show there are local effects that are caused by wind turbines and solar arrays, I don't think I've ever seen a study which has said that the amount of carbon produced by these local changes in biomes is anywhere near the carbon saved by the move to renewables. The REE exploration problem is also a good point on current EVs, but there's a good chance that new batteries will have no Cobalt in them at all (as an aside, the reason that companies are looking to migrate from it has little to do with the scarcity, but more to do with the fact that it's largely mined in very, very poor ways, I'm looking at you, Glencore). The point about intermittency and "Wind and solar promoters need to start admitting that they are not capable of providing this type of continuous and on-demand electricity supply on a national scale that modern societies are used to" is not an overly well made one, there are a bunch of ways around this and it's one of the biggest challenges being faced today in the industry. HDR, battery technology have come a long way in the last little bit. Anyways, take the article with a grain of salt as you should do with everything.

aoesuthaoeusnh 6y ago
> I don't think I've ever seen a study which has said that the amount of carbon produced by these local changes in biomes is anywhere near the carbon saved by the move to renewables. Right, but I think you have seen a lot of propaganda about wind & solar being "clean energy" when in reality it's an inflated expectation. In reality, we're still measuring the negative impact of these offshore wind farms on the climate. > there are a bunch of ways around this and it's one of the biggest challenges being faced today in the industry I'm non native sorry, but confused as of how this could be "one of the biggest challenges" if "there are a bunch of ways around this". > Anyways, take the article with a grain of salt as you should do with everything. The article bases on what's happening now and not on what might happen when the battery technology will pass a major milestone at industrial level or whatnot. I think the essence of the article is that renewables are not the silver bullet many hoped it would be. We seem falling from the top of the "peak of inflated expectations" (from the Hype Cycle).

lazylizard 6y ago

ok but there surely is "cleaner energy"?

FirstAuthor 6y ago
Yes, there is cleaner energy. For example, natural gas is cleaner than coal, and nuclear is cleaner than biomass. See Table 2.