Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Science
In reply to the discussion: To What Extent Are We Using Science for Sustainable Development? [View all]NNadir
(36,204 posts)7. Well, it's very cute, but I'm interested in numbers that matter, again, not numbers associated with toys.
Now perhaps there are people here who think they care about the environment, but disregard data, from say, the International Energy Agency as "misinformation."
Every year the International Energy Agency publishes the World Energy Outlook (WEO) and I generally refer to each issue throughout the year.
My most recent entry on this topic, referring to the 2023 WEO released just two weeks ago is here:
The 2023 World Energy Outlook Has Been Released. 632 EJ, 15 EJ from Solar and Wind in 2022.
Excerpted:
If you want to know why the planet was on fire in the Northern Hemisphere Summer This Year, it may be useful to look at the following table, Table A.1a on Page 264 of the 2023 World Energy Outlook published by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

...
...Solar and wind combined grew as fast as coal, by three Exajoules, except that combined solar and wind produced 15 Exajoules in 2022, whereas coal use rose to 170 Exajoules. In "percent talk," so often utilized to obscure the uselessness of the solar and wind industry in addressing climate change, coal produced 1133% as much primary energy as solar and wind.
The consumption of petroleum rose by 5 Exajoules from 2021 to 2022 to 187 Exajoules, 167% as fast as solar and wind in "percent talk."
Overall, world energy demand rose from 624 Exajoules to 632 Exajoules, by 8 Exajoules if one has not joined Greenpeace and can thus do simple math. In "percent talk," world energy demand grew 267% faster than solar and wind...

...
...Solar and wind combined grew as fast as coal, by three Exajoules, except that combined solar and wind produced 15 Exajoules in 2022, whereas coal use rose to 170 Exajoules. In "percent talk," so often utilized to obscure the uselessness of the solar and wind industry in addressing climate change, coal produced 1133% as much primary energy as solar and wind.
The consumption of petroleum rose by 5 Exajoules from 2021 to 2022 to 187 Exajoules, 167% as fast as solar and wind in "percent talk."
Overall, world energy demand rose from 624 Exajoules to 632 Exajoules, by 8 Exajoules if one has not joined Greenpeace and can thus do simple math. In "percent talk," world energy demand grew 267% faster than solar and wind...
Now if one is so busy patting one's self on the back for owning a solar array - which will be electronic waste for which future generations will have to deal in less than 25 years - for producing 80,000 kWh of unreliable electricity over a period of 9 years one may not be paying much attention to the world beyond.
80,000 kWh over 9 years works out to 288 billion joules, or 32 billion joules per year. Humanity was consuming, according to the WEO which may be represented as "misinformation" by anyone embracing delusional dogma, in 2022, 632 Exajoules of energy, where the Exa prefix refers to 1018, or one billion billions. Thus 32 billion Joules (32GJ) represents a fraction equal to 0.000000032 of the world energy supply. It follows, even if we ignore the consequences of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as battery assholes do all the time to deal with the issue of "night," that we'd "only" need close to 20 billion solar set ups like the one described in this thread to meet the world energy supply.
I also track, regularly the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide and its concentrations in the planetary atmosphere.
A recent, among many posts in my journal here is this one:
New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record (Provisional) Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 424.63 ppm.
An excerpt:
Here is the latest provisional data from the Observatory, again subject to revision resulting from our continual policy of doing nothing to address climate change:
Week beginning on May 28, 2023: 424.63 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 421.71 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 399.94 ppm
Last updated: June 03, 2023
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Whenever I say "doing nothing," I can surely expect all kinds of excuses, tortured prevarications, and soothsaying from aficionados of the failed, and yes, useless, solar and wind industries and the even more stupid and far more dangerous ideas of storing energy (with the appalling hydrogen and battery nonsense) when we do not have clean primary energy. These are to be expected. Popular lies always die with difficulty, particularly when they take on cult status.
If you want to argue that mining and land use changes with associated with the useless the solar and wind industries are "doing something," please be assured there is a zero probability that I will buy it. You are of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish, but there's a 100% probability that I won't buy it.
At the close of the 20th century, a 52 week running average of comparators with data of that obtained in the same week 10 years earlier was 15.26 ppm/10 years. As of this week the same figure is 24.25 ppm/10 years.
Things are getting worse faster.
Whatever it is we think we're doing to address the waste crisis associated with the use of dangerous fossil fuels, it clearly isn't working.
Week beginning on May 28, 2023: 424.63 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 421.71 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 399.94 ppm
Last updated: June 03, 2023
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
Whenever I say "doing nothing," I can surely expect all kinds of excuses, tortured prevarications, and soothsaying from aficionados of the failed, and yes, useless, solar and wind industries and the even more stupid and far more dangerous ideas of storing energy (with the appalling hydrogen and battery nonsense) when we do not have clean primary energy. These are to be expected. Popular lies always die with difficulty, particularly when they take on cult status.
If you want to argue that mining and land use changes with associated with the useless the solar and wind industries are "doing something," please be assured there is a zero probability that I will buy it. You are of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish, but there's a 100% probability that I won't buy it.
At the close of the 20th century, a 52 week running average of comparators with data of that obtained in the same week 10 years earlier was 15.26 ppm/10 years. As of this week the same figure is 24.25 ppm/10 years.
Things are getting worse faster.
Whatever it is we think we're doing to address the waste crisis associated with the use of dangerous fossil fuels, it clearly isn't working.
In my experience, as a scientist, I am acutely aware that people who refuse to have their lazy dogma challenged refer to facts as "misinformation." We saw it a great deal during the Covid crisis, but actually, in terms of consequences, energy dogma is much worse, because climate change is killing the future for all coming generations and Covid only killed a few million people.
As it happens, while all our "solar will save us" heroes spend time patting themselves on the back for their nobility, 19,000 people die every day from air pollution while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come. Covid never killed as many as 19,000 people in a single day, even on its worst day.
Ref: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 19902019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 1723 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
Excerpt from the reference:
The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·496·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·522·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·784·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·816·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·403·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·415·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·533·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·012·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·683·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·513·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·027·10) deaths (21·4% [20·522·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·906·29) deaths (18·2% [16·220·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·655·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·017·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·314·24] deaths (12·2% [11·013·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·704·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·914·1] of all male deaths in 2019).
Now over the years here, 21 of them as of later this month, I've heard lots of bull from people who claim to care about the environment but not so much as to look in any detail at it. It's all handwaving and chanting with these types.
Since the week I joined DU, the concentration of the dangerous and deadly fossil fuel waste, as of this week, has risen by 46.48 ppm. In May of 2024, assuming I'm still alive, which I may not be, we will pass the 50 ppm mark in my tenure.
All the while people have been hyping solar and wind energy, which remains trivial, useless, and unsustainable, doing nothing more than to entrench the use of dangerous fossil fuels, about which solar and wind advocates couldn't care less.
As for whining about "wringing hands in defeat," I am very proud of the fact that I raised a son who is working on a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering.
He's certainly not sitting on his ass repeating self congratulatory pablum about "doing something" which in fact amounts to doing nothing and worse, cheering for doing nothing.
He and his colleagues consider that they are doing what can be done to save what is left to save and restore that which can be restored.
If one cares about the environment for real one will know what's going on. One get's off one's ass and looks into the matter, the numbers that matter, not just some trivial numbers in some personal provincial setting, but in the world at large.
The planet now burns in summers. People die in the streets from extreme heat and indoors when the air conditioning fails. Vast ecosystems are collapsing. Extreme weather rips all around the world The glaciers on which billions of people depend for their water supply are disappearing.
In general I encounter people all the time who claim to care, but actually haven't even a trace of knowledge about what is happening.
It is, indeed, regrettable how many there are. They, like the "solar and wind will save us" bullshit they hand out are what I said they are in the OP, tiresome.
Have a wonderful day tomorrow.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
