I referred to that the other day, with a link to a AoSHQ post which talked about the net energy ROI of solar panels approximating unity.
Arse Technica, the global warming resource, pans it mercilessly. Of course. It's kind of fun to read that article because they are so clearly enraged by the existence of this movie.
Demonstrably false claims come fast and furious. It's said multiple times that fossil fuel plants have to "idle" all day to ramp up when solar or wind dips and that this is worse than simply running the fossil fuel plant all day instead. We're similarly told that using grid storage batteries to smooth out supply from increased renewables makes things worse rather than better (because of battery manufacturing). And hydrogen? That can only be produced from petroleum, we learn, as if splitting water wasn't the main argument for expanding hydrogen use.So, if these claims are "demonstrably false", where is your demonstration? Let me explain to you why they're not false claims.
Fossil fuel plants are designed to run most efficiently at a certain speed. That means they produce the maximum amount of electricity for a minimum amount of fuel. If you turn them down to "idle", though, you need to keep everything ready to ramp up at a moment's notice, but at idle they're not running efficiently--which means they burn more fuel and emit more gunk into the air per unit of heat output than they do at speed.
Remember this bit from the energy crisis? "Your MPG at idle is zero."
Unless you plan to have the grid storage batteries be brought down from on high by an archangel, then yes they are going to have to be manufactured, and it takes energy to make them, and that energy is likely to be generated by burning fossil fuels. Not to mention that the kinds of batteries you need will be made using dirty processes, using lots of cobalt and rare earth metals. And that means an energy investment and an environmental impact which dwarf the costs of just using fossil fuels.
The thing about producing hydrogen from water--making hydrogen from fossil fuel is essentially a "downhill" reaction--it doesn't take much energy to do it. But electrolyzing water is an uphill reaction, meaning you have to put a lot of energy into it. And because of the Laws of Thermodynamcs, you will put in more energy than you will get back out. Hydrogen from water is an energy storage medium and it's a pretty inefficient one to boot.
Basically, the renewable energy economy only works if you get something for free from somewhere. Otherwise, solar-wind-biomass cost as much energy as they produce. As I said above, if you can somehow enlist the help of angels to handle one aspect or another of the transaction--but if you can't do that, and if you can't otherwise produce a thermodynamic miracle, then all you're doing is raising the price of electricity for no real benefit.
* * *
The communists are really going after the landlords because "property is theft".
If you've signed a lease that says you will pay $X per month, then it's your legal obligation to do so--and if you fail to pay your rent, then your landlord has every right to evict you.
* * *
Chest congestion that won't quit--talked to doc on the phone and I now have to go pick up a pair of prescriptions. That means getting dressed and putting on a mask and waiting in line at the store to get in, like this was fucking Soviet Russia or something.
Hey, comrade, how long will it be before I can't complain about it in public? Or are we already there?