Tuesday, 2 December 2014


Monday, Dec 01 2014
Written by Lewis Page, The Register on 28 Nov 2014
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible (full article here).
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE
REclosed it down
 after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.
The two men write:
At the start of RE
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
One should note that RE
Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go - none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.
So nobody's up for that. And yet, stalwart environmentalists like Koningstein and Fork - and many others - remain convinced that the dangers of carbon-driven warming are real and massive. Indeed the pair reference the famous NASA boffin Dr James Hansen, who is more or less the daddy of modern global warming fears, and say like him that we must move rapidly not just to lessened but to zero carbon emissions (and on top of that, suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the air by such means as planting forests).
So, how is this to be done?
Read more at www.theregister.co.uk



Saturday, 15 November 2014


no longer in the night need hide:

“Climate models – there aren’t any”, I lamented in http://tinyurl.com/n7kvbff , asking “Where are the Real-Climate-Modellers? Certainly not here: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf “. 

But then, I read this:

Trafford Publishing
Printed by Amazon.co.uk Ltd, Marston Gate, UK [no date given]

 I let the back cover speak for itself:

To quote the author with a few excerpts:

“First and foremost, what you are about to read in this book regarding climate change is unvarnished, with no punches pulled…. This book will, however, be what every American and citizen of the world needs to know most about our climate. It will be something you have not been allowed to hear for almost twenty years.  It will be – the truth.”

“Within a few weeks after this most important Bi-Centennial Cycle discovery, I had formulated the Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity, or the RC theory, to account for its effects and those of other similar cycles. Here then is that theory and its seven main elements that came from my independent research. It is my fondest hope that with the growing support the theory is receiving from top researchers and scientists from around the world, the next global climate change, which will be a return to a deep and prolonged cold period, will nonetheless be met by a people well prepared to endure it.

The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity
(The RC Theory)

  1. There exists a family of solar activity cycles that has a profound and direct influence on Earth’s climate.
  2. These cycles are called “relational cycles,” since their effects can be experienced or related to during one or two human lifetimes.
  3. There is a “Centennial Cycle” of ninety to one hundred years’ duration, which manifests itself with solar activity minimums and associated low temperatures, with episodes lasting a few years to one to two decades.
  4. There is a “Bi-Centennial Cycle” of about 206 years that is the most powerful of the relational cycles and has significant effects on the climate of the Earth, lasting several decades and resulting in the most extreme variations in solar activity and in Earth’s temperatures.
  5. These cycles are correlated strongly to all past major temperature lows.
  6. There is remarkable regularity within and hence predictability from these oscillations, such that the theory may be a powerful tool in forecasting major temperature and climate cycles on Earth, many decades in advance.
  7. There may be other relational cycles of shorter duration accounting for lesser solar and climate events, which may be revealed in subsequent research.”

A Real-Climate-Modeller at last!

ADDENDUM  17 NOV 2014  10:29 GMT

A BBC NEWS video has been published with comment on Robert Felix's web site:

and a second link to the video only  

Thursday, 2 October 2014



1.     I only know what I read, hoping to find answers to doubts and question arising – all to do with my chosen subject of Energy and Sustainability, and in particular with Clean Energy. Much as to account to myself what I found and learnt from my enquiries, as well as to enlist helpful corrections from comments, I created a blogsite five years ago, reaching my fiftieth posting.  From preceding reading and searches I decided to define my idea of what constitutes Clean Energy, in the broadest sense.

2.     This definition is at the head of all my blog entries, better readable in my Blog Log at  http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/blog-post.html 
     In the following, all references to blog entries are shown as #n, where n is the numbered blog entry as listed. 

3.     Not long ago, I was asked to explain Why I do What I do – now at #39.

4.     Beginning to switch form Architect  to Pundit  (for want of a better word in contra-distinction to ‘expert’ or ‘consultant, which I don’t claim to be), I was as much in awe of the impending man-made-global-warming-disaster as anyone else, not least when the seriousness of this impending doom was brought home especially to architects by the change in Building Regulations demanding to account for energy use in buildings no longer in kWh but in kg of CO2 .  

5.     Special reinforcement of this necessary change – and possible solution, was given by Hermann Scheer’s lecture at the Royal Institute of Architects (RIBA) in April 2008, cf  #6. followed in July that year by  personally enlisting in a 4-day residential course at the Salzburg Global Seminar, titled Combating Climate Change at Local and Regional Level:  Sustainable Strategies, Renewable Energy.  As an erstwhile alumnus from 1958 (when the same institution was still 'Salzburg Seminar in American Studies'), I had attended with my wife the Seminar’s six-day Summer Festival in 2007, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Seminar’s foundation. And there, on an excursion to the Grossglockner  in the Austrian Alps I saw something we weren’t shown at the ‘climate change’ seminar, cf. #2 , second picture onwards. It took me some time to become aware of the significance of that visit, i.e. visual evidence that melting glaciers prove that CO2 cannot possibly be a main driver of any global warming; and evidence of widespread media Gleichschaltung on that subject to this day.      cf. #2, #27, #29, #45.

6.     All my blog entries, not least #1, are tentative explorative essays in trying to find FACTS [as in “Truth is a purely human construct, but facts are eternal”, Alexius Meinong] behind various energy, sustainability and related assertions. Because one aspect soon became evident:  you cannot have ‘Clean Energy’ without honesty, clean science and clean politics (and clean money). cf.#7 #39

7.     Let me end these Preambles with my summary view of all posts (still all work in progress) but especially of  #12, #41 and #45:  the UN/IPCC/EU/IMF concocted AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fabrication appears to be the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever. As in “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.” #45

8.     Does that mean we should forget about pollution and carry on regardless? No, for we can all agree that pollution is not a ‘good thing’ – we all could not miss  seeing it from pictures of those dirt laden grey and black smokestacks and smog laden Chinese and other cities (and I well remember the heavy London smogs in the early 60s when even the London Underground platforms had close to nil visibility, apart from deaths from breathing that stuff).   Only one thing is sure in these circumstances:  what you can see, is with 100% certainty not CO2 , which is invisible. What is visible is pollution  consisting of NOX, SOX and OBNOX (nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, particulates and anything else obnox-ious) all of which are the province of Clean-Air-Acts (as so blatantly in London) and have nothing to do with global climate – they are simply the ‘dirt in the linen’ that has to be ‘washed out from’, or never put into these smokestacks of sorts, in the first place.  CO2 per se appears far too trivial to consider as Global Climate driver #41.

9.     Since starting the TYGER series of my readings at #30, and ending with my recapping of The Bottomless Well  #50,  I am now convinced that this is the actual TYGER now found following its ‘Spoors’  #42 into the ‘Lair’  #43 and now found. – alive and well, more relevant than ever, and best guideline for future conduct and comparative assessment of things energetic. cf #50   http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/eroei-or-iou-e-nergy-r-eturned-o-ver-e.html

here is the TYGER MustRead FOUND:


PS  collections of further reads are, courtesy of Twitter and Facebook, at
Twitter:         https://twitter.com/CLEANENERGYBUFF