A Perfect Trifecta (part two)

As part of a consulting project with five clients regarding long-term energy strategies, the clients and one of our senior advisors agreed to release some of his remarks toward these clients. His background is as an electrical engineer and technical advisor toward development of public policy (having graduated from a prestigious university located in Pittsburgh and serving as a technical policy analyst for most of his life. He’s also keen on flying and has piloted everything from fighters to trainers to commercial aircraft as well as smaller bizjets including the classic Lear 23). A partial transcript follows:

“What got me hooked was a few of our projects in college; specifically in analyzing what effects Dichlorodiflouromethane–R12, and Diflourochloromethane — R22 might have on ozone production in the upper atmosphere. You have to remember this was in the 80s and everyone was worried about some hole in the ozone. We were able to demonstrate that chlorinated or fluorinated hydrocarbons DID have some effect on binding ozone as well as inhibiting ozone production under static laboratory conditions. BUT we were doing so at incredibly high concentrations; concentrations much greater than if your evaporator blew and filled your house with 8 pounds of freon. Moreover, these compounds have huge molecular weights compared to air–on the order of 86 or 120–air is around 29–and there was no evidence that even with heavy convective activity they could be spewed beyond the trop in any significant concentration such that they could get, stay, and accumulate in the upper atmosphere–tending to settle more toward the surface in that they were so much more dense than air. At the time we were told that chlorinated hydrocarbons rarely existed in nature (another falsehood). But it got our group to thinking.

Anyway, we found out later that volcanic eruptions spewed a whole bunch of junk–including hydrocarbons and chlorines, halogenated hydrocarbons (similar to freons), fluorine, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, particulates, sulfur oxides, you name it–with enough energy to get well past the trop and into the stratosphere. In simply massive quantities; well beyond anything mankind has ever synthesized. And began to wonder why we were target fixated on compounds that were relatively non-toxic (compared to Ammonia or Sulfur Dioxide as a refrigerant) and in such minuscule concentrations compared to OTHER natural compounds and processes which might interfere with ozone production. We were literally looking a comparison of less than a gallon in the Pacific Ocean of materials; and relatively benign ones at that. A literal needle in a haystack. So we backed off the concentrations and found even at dramatically increased halogen concentrations ozone production and sustenance was unaffected; we needed extremely high concentrations to get any meaningful effect. Of course, we relayed these results but no one seemed very interested in listening; the overriding goal at the time was to ‘do something’ even though no one knew what the right something might be or that there was any reason at all to ‘do something.’

And we then watched the EPA proceed to ban R-12 and R-22 making the prices of existing stocks skyrocket. Also getting fragged in the process were 2 wonderful firefighting compounds; both of the Halon series. These compounds are great and used on aircraft to put out cabin fires as well as engine fires–it’s a different Halon used on the engines than in the cabin but both are similar in how they work–both are a form of bromated halogenated carbons. As a side note while BCF is wonderful in fighting fires, straight freons like R-12 MUST be kept away from open flame in that the potential to create phosgene–a very toxic and deadly gas–exists. Obviously individuals having cheap access to these types of fire extinguishers could save lives and mitigate property damage. But price went way up and availability declined. All over what we would find later was a complete lie.

What was the lie ? That man-made freons were depleting the ozone in the atmosphere. When this–through scientific analysis– was determined to be unequivocally false, these wonderful compounds were simply re-designated as greenhouse gases and regulated/banned as such. Effectively, it was a lie to cover up a lie–rather than the EPA doing something to benefit mankind it was interested solely in its own regulatory power, funding, and authority–and willing to throw mankind under the bus for personal gain. So to this day new production of these wonderful compounds is banned. And techs working with existing stocks have to go through bureaucratic idiocy treating it like it was radioactive (all at an incredibly higher price).

Now…as a solution….R410a and R134 were created. Not the best in that technically R410 operates at a much higher pressure and while there might be some efficiency gains this has resulted in air conditioner evaporators springing leaks at a much greater rate due to the inevitable fatigue cracking due to the higher pressure (incidentally venting the now-expensive freon into the air while the tech under regulation must diligently attempt to re-capture it; analogous to the nanny state flow restricters in showers with someone watering the hell out of their lawn with sprinklers). But they seemed to work kinda-OK. However, NOW–after having people invest incredible amounts of money in the switchover that needn’t have happened anyway–we’re told that 410 and 134 gotta go due to ‘global warming.’ Just like the scam they pulled with R22/12. As such we have this ever moving set of goalposts designed to make a few rich while having the net effect of devolving mankind.

So this got us to thinking; if the EPA and so-called ‘scientists’ are willing to go to this length to push a self serving completely false agenda, what ELSE might they be capable of doing ? And the answer lay in the carbon scam; this is an incredible broadband strategy that touches all aspects of mankind’s life. We often joke that a scientist is kind of like an engineer who can’t get fired when he makes a terrible mistake (not to belittle my laboratory colleagues and friends; this is a good natured ribbing). Anyway, our team went into a detailed analysis of fossil fuels, carbon, CO2 (which is ALSO heavier than air albeit not to the extent freons are), etc. and actually ran the numbers with the various atmospheric models.

Not to get too “Star Trek” on you but carbon is the basis for all life on earth. Plants are the primary producers–using photosynthesis to create basic hydrocarbons–which are then consumed by entities going up the food chain. This is they way it’s been for millions of years. Pretty much everything consumes these hydrocarbons from cows to humans (including parasites and mosquitoes–even viruses and bacteria often feed off of hosts which provide energy ultimately based on plant photosynthesis–although these hosts may use lower food chain intermediaries for energy–fr’ instance, humans eat pigs, fish, chickens, and cows–and drink milk or sometimes beer– which essentially uses these advanced hydrocarbons–as well as the much more complex protein and enzyme compounds–which have been synthesized from other living intermediates–like cows or goats or chickens or fish or even yeast–directly into foods which serve the human body). So CO2 is an essential part of the process; stimulating plant growth which is necessary for life. It’s the key to life as we know it, if you will. It’s NOT a pollutant.

When our team took the fractional area of the adsorption spectra for carbon (there are 3 significant peaks; 2 of which lay in the key IR band), looked at the increase of CO2 of ALL types over the last 200 years (which has risen from roughly 200-ish ppm to 400 ppm), looked at the re-radiation efficiency of earth towards IR-type black body radiation, etc. and modeled it to determine potential effect (all at a best-case scenario for supporting the global warming ‘theory’) we came to a startling result. Namely that ANY effect from ALL sources of CO2 fell well into the noise. ANY effect was at least two orders of magnitude below our ability to meaningfully measure ‘heat in’ or variations in solar output (and all data promoting the theory depended heavily on measurement tolerances orders of magnitude above any net effect). We were back to the gallon of water in the ocean or needle in a haystack analogy. When we scaled this to something familiar–i.e. a window that opens two feet (modeling the heat loss or gain from a room), we came to the conclusion scaling it to a window that opened two feet–that the window had been closed NINE MILLIONTHS of ONE inch. Completely immeasurable in effect compared to variations in current of a heater or even winds. So it’s not surprising that the technical models ‘fall apart’ or that agenda based scientists have doctored data; the wide tolerances prevent developing ANY conclusions based on climate change theory. Not only is it NOT ‘settled science,’ it’s not ‘science’ at all. It’s merely a propagated assertion. As such, there is no regulatory basis for attempting to truncate CO2 emissions and never has been. In short, it’s a scam. Just about everything that happens when it comes to adverse weather, droughts, floods, heat, cold, you name it–can be blamed on ‘us’ for wanting to live a decent life. It’s a cult of sorts.

It’s a bit perverse when environmental marxists shift the propaganda paradigm; when you call them on the numbers they go immediately to the ‘well, it’s the RATE of change’ malarkey. As if they could measure accurate rates of change in 2020 then back-project them to the 19th or 18th century–or even into the Middle Ages–with any degree of accuracy. 500 years is the blink of an eye when it comes to climatic changes on earth; if we grab ice core samples alleged from 10,000 years ago and happen to have a decent radiocarbon dating source with 5% tolerance, we’re still unsure to within half a millennium. 500 years ago was 1522. How many scientists were in Pittsburgh in 1522 with accurate clocks and thermometers ? As such, our ability to see changes and precise timing is only but a glimpse and snapshot. To believe one could extrapolate this beyond the precision of the measuring device is preposterous.

Yet some folks get suckered in. Why ?

Perception. What HAS changed is information flow. We now have very rapid and relatively precise (historically speaking) data available at our fingertips, 24 hours a day. In my youth, hearing about a tornado in Kansas might have taken days and been printed in newspaper, heard over the radio, or seen in black and white on one of 4 television channels. The weather channel–or even NEXRAD quality doppler radar–didn’t exist. Now it does, and people are manipulated from this; disregarding the remembrance of our past and framing things through the lens of today. And for some reason those individuals would rather trust someone who seems to speak from a position of authority — simply because they have paper on walls or speak well–than look into it for themselves.

It’s kind of ingenious in a way but also simply psychological manipulation. Any time a hydrocarbon is burned, there is ALWAYS CO2 and pure, fresh water created in a stoichiometric ratio. No matter how cleanly it’s burned. The environ-Nazis would have trouble targeting an excellent source of clean, new, fresh water so instead went after carbon. When most people think of carbon, they think not of diamonds but of dusty, black, sooty stuff. So carbon became the obvious victim of a psychological manipulation campaign; one with no basis in scientific fact. It’s made to look ‘dirty’ to burn coal and oil and this paradigm is psychologically shifted in order to do societal harm through the perpetuation of a fraud. Despite the fact that carbon is the basis for all natural life on earth and is a much more precious resource than gold.

In the epitome of malicious stupidity, people tout EVs as ’emission free’ while banning NATGAS in new construction (in the latter case I believe both Oakland and San Fran were banning natgas for new construction). This is the height of willing idiocy. When one considers the thermal cycle powering both cars and home cooking/heating apparati, it’ll be some form of thermal (probably NATGAS even in California). So in the case of an EV OR an electrically powered home furnace/hotplate you lose 50% of the natgas energy you put in and use to generate electricity right off the top at the power plant–directly from the second law of thermodynamics (and these are the most efficient fourth generation plants I’m talking about here). Accounting for distribution losses you’re now down into the 40s. As such, for a home heater or gas cooker, you’ve now gone from around 80% (or better with a high efficiency furnace) efficiency in putting a therm of natgas to work down to 40%–effectively doubling your emissions footprint. EVs are a little worse in that –once you get energy in and out of the battery you’re down into the low 30s for the overall cycle. Worse than a Subaru and much worse than a Diesel engine. Perhaps on par with a loaded down 4-runner (which holds more than the EV and is easier to fuel).

I remember my youth of growing up near Pittsburgh–the blast furnaces and steel mills were amazing symbols of real progress. Huge, towering behemoths that forged a generation who built America — her roads, bridges, and real-live ‘made in America’ industrial first rate quality products. A gift from the greatest generation. Who did real work and went through real sacrifice. Unfortunately, these also belched real pollutants–things like particulates, soot, heavy metals, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead. Lead was ingeniously used as an anti-detonation additive in engines allowing them to produce much greater power without tearing themselves apart (in fact, the genius Charles Kettering–working with GM–pioneered both Freon as well as tetraethyl lead — TEL — to progress mankind. It’s questionable whether or not we’d have won WWII without this genius and TEL; this additive allowed the venerable R-2800 as well as other engines to be run at up to twice atmospheric pressure and develop over 1 horsepower per cubic inch giving aircraft a definitive edge in power. And was subsequently used for years in motor vehicles of all sorts). Now, TEL IS pretty toxic stuff in higher concentrations so when engines were able to have their timing adjusted by electronics–thus eliminating detonation at higher power levels– it later wasn’t a bad idea to transition away from it. Unfortunately, due to these externalities–which definitely did exist–the EPA was born. While it might have had a noble calling at first–no one can argue for dirty air and water–quoting from Mark Baum in “The Big Short” regarding mortgage backed securities–our government turned a good idea into an atomic bomb of destruction. One can certainly see attempting to mitigate REAL pollutants–unburned hydrocarbons, mercury, heavy metals, cadmium, SOx, NOx, excess particulates (although one might argue that nature herself replaced particulates with nasty stuff like cedar pollen which used to bind with particulates and was less of an allergen and asthmatic before the air got ‘too clean’), etc. But as we got ‘too clean’ the bureaucracy simply couldn’t stop. And went into a search and destroy mode; eventually being taken over by marxists. And when it ran out of REAL pollutants to help mitigate, it simply made things up. Targeting CO2–an essential compound of life. To the extent of insanity.

ALL forms of energy have some form of externality; there IS no such thing as ‘green’ energy. This term is used as simple propaganda. None is necessarily better than any other. “Renewable” is a propaganda term as well; ALL forms of energy are to some extent renewable and all NOT. The key determinant being does this source work for YOU. If you’re off the grid in a windy place, a windmill might work great. Likewise, if you’re off the grid in a sunny place solar might be the key to YOUR energy needs. Or if you can tap into a plentiful source of NATGAS on your property–THAT might be the way to go. If you find large coal deposits on your land, you might wanna dig them up and build yourself a boiler and turbine generator. It’s what you happen to have available or can acquire that counts.

Fr’ instance, we all know a large wind turbine field is ugly as sin. They kill birds and affect wildlife while having unreliable power output. They take considerable environmental resources to construct as well as have local environmental impact. How then–when the fractional contribution of CO2 from fossils is so minuscule on its environmental impact–have we been manipulated to believe wind turbines or solar would have less of an environmental impact (on a megawatt basis) than burning an equivalent amount of coal ?!!? Wind turbines extract energy from local moving air masses and change that energy to electricity–so they effectively slow down and change the temperature of the moving air mass commensurate with energy extracted. Solar panels re-radiate (to the tune of 78-80%) energy as well; much of this (because they are darker than the surroundings) is in the IR band (effectively ‘black painting’ surroundings which USED to be lighter in color and more reflective). This obviously increases solar adsorption by materials that were NOT present on the earths’ surface before. Warming the planet. Geothermal extracts energy from beneath the core and uses this energy to produce electricity; as such it has a small effect on the moment of momentum of the earth and will affect earths’ rotation. Perhaps one might argue that all of these externalities are of trivial magnitude, but they are of similar magnitude to what the fractional concentration of burning fossils might do ! So we see in essence the use of solar, wind turbines, geothermal, etc. contribute to global warming in exactly the same manner that burning fossils might.

It always amazed me that those willing to embrace the scientifically flawed “greenhouse gas” theory–modeling the atmosphere to a car interior– never backed up a bit and thought “Well, if I paint the interior of my car–or greenhouse–black as opposed to silver, white, or light gray, what then happens to the interior temperature on a sunny day ?” Or thought “gee, I wonder what effect all these black/dark blue panels might be having in converting otherwise reflected light to IR heat.” I’m kinda surprised that no one has said to the global warming crowd “So–‘genius’–you think that minuscule amounts of CO2 are causing the planet to warm and your solution is effectively to paint a large chunk of the earth black and slow down the breeze ?!?”

What we’re witnessing is simply a money and power scam where a few individuals and nations try to get rich at the expense of others. China launders money to anti-fossil US politicians, slaps up a few ‘we’re green’ stickers and signs, builds a few wind farms, and continues to spew REAL pollutants unabated into the environment. Meanwhile, these paid-off miscreants go buy up beachfront property; hardly what someone who thought the seas were rising would do. None of them actually ‘walk the walk’ with their let-them-eat-cake philosophy and all of the environmarxists are the anthesis of true conservationists. Some of the dirtiest people on the planet trying to tell the peons what to do. It’s against everything this nation was founded upon; that we’re ALL equal. Moreover, these environmarxist self-important gluttons pollute at a dizzying rate leaving others to clean up after them.

Over the next few days we’re going to analyze your specific situation and see which kinds of energy might suit your purpose well. Remember there IS no ‘green’ or ‘clean’ energy; the sole determinants are cost, availability, reliability, and projected supply.”

We think our senior advisor’s remarks to be spot on. Especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision at least reigning in a run-amok EPA. We HOPE this spells the death-knell for the EPA as we know it (as well as other bureaucracies which create law by fiat and serve only to stifle productivity and hurt people). And are sure the governors of the ‘free’ states will use the opportunity to legally ignore draconian Federal overregulation–benefit to all. When the so-called ‘clean air’ act was propagated, there WERE significant REAL pollutants present; it was never intended to regulate the very substance of life CO2 is. It’s nice that rivers don’t burn anymore and we have relatively smog-free air, but as we all know bureaucracies don’t know when to quit. Or are capable of running meaningful cost-benefit analyses.

Here at D-J, we continue to advocate broadband energy choices and policies; ones which WORK for a particular scenario. We are distressed to watch so-called energy ‘experts’ declare war on fossil fuels while jetting away on some climate junket–expending the equivalent energy burden in one trip to what a hundred families might use in one year. The ONLY problem with King Coal and other fossils is that they’re used at a rate greater than produced and as such will begin to run out in a couple of hundred years. We believe future energy sources will undoubtedly be nuclear–both in the Uranium-Thorium cycle and in fusion, for these are the only longer-term sources that can fuel our energy needs for millennia to come. A form of molten salt Thorium-Uranium breeder program does show promise although at present is attempting to work with chemical salts far too nasty for widespread commercial power usage (a great advantage of a molten salt or similar reactor is that it can enjoy excellent thermodynamic efficiency due to the higher temperature of operation and can do so without the extreme pressures of modern-day pressurized water reactors). The Thorium cycle uses plentiful Thorium to breed into Uranium-233 and can also be used for nuclear waste disposal–all while generating energy. The heat transfer medium is more of an engineering issue than a genuine concrete barrier and we believe will be solved in time.

We believe it insane that miscreants would attempt to destroy and bridle our energy sources at a time where we’re going to need all hands on deck to solve whatever nature throws at us. If the climate does indeed warm–something we have little control over–we’re going to need the energy to deal with this; move water, cool our homes, move farming assets, irrigate land, etc. So getting ahead of the curve–drilling, mining, building nuclear reactors, hydro dams, pipelines, etc. ALL needs to be put on the front burner. If there IS a climate crisis (or ever might be) we NEED a HUGE supply of fossil and other fuel such that we can deal with it. Our governments are attempting to bomb us back into the Stone Age with pens. Time to put an end to this.

Meanwhile, we commend the SCOTUS on its ruling and enjoy burning King Coal !