- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 91
Assumptive Bias, Misleading Terminology, and Geopolitical Contradictions
Executive Summary
An analysis of climate science communication reveals significant problems with assumptive claim bias, scientifically inaccurate terminology, and fundamental contradictions between Western policy objectives and global economic reality.
Part 1: Fundamental Scientific Questions Under Debate
1.1 The Greenhouse Effect Theory vs. Alternative Hypotheses
Mainstream Position:
- Surface temperature determined by greenhouse gas radiative forcing
- CO₂ increase from ~280ppm to ~420ppm drives observed warming
Alternative Hypothesis (Nikolov-Zeller):
- Planetary temperatures determined by solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure
- Empirical model accurately predicts surface temperatures across multiple planets using only these two variables
- Greenhouse gas composition shown to be immaterial in their calculations
Critical Physics Debate:
- Energy conservation violations alleged on both sides
- Correlation vs. causation in pressure-temperature relationships
- Observable spectral absorption by CO₂ vs. thermodynamic effects of atmospheric mass
Key Point: This is NOT settled science - it's an ongoing physics debate with substantial arguments on both sides.
1.2 Earth's Internal Heat Budget
Geoneutrino Detection (KamLAND, Borexino):
- Details
- Written by: Interogation of AI by John Burke - Research and Analysis - AI
- Hits: 167
IEA World Energy Outlook 2025: Gap Analysis
What's Missing from the "World View" Through the Lens of Waste Reduction & McGuire's Systems Framework
Prepared: December 2025
Analysis Context: Based on previous discussions regarding energy efficiency, waste reduction strategies, and Peter McGuire's GAP identification philosophy
Executive Summary
The IEA's World Energy Outlook 2025, while comprehensive in its modelling of energy supply scenarios and technology deployment pathways, exhibits fundamental structural blind spots that would be immediately visible through Peter McGuire's gap identification framework. The document exemplifies what McGuire warned about: when your analytical structure is built around the wrong organizing principles, you create systematic blind spots that prevent you from seeing the most important opportunities.
Core Problem: The IEA framework is structured around:
- Supply-side solutions (generation capacity additions)
- Fuel substitution (renewable energy replacing fossil fuels)
- Carbon emissions accounting (CO2 as primary metric)
This structure systematically obscures:
- Demand-side waste reduction (capturing the 60%+ energy currently lost)
- Thermodynamic efficiency fundamentals (Tier 1 physical realities)
- Integrated systems thinking (CHP, district heating, industrial symbiosis)
Part 1: Peter McGuire's GAP Framework Applied to IEA
1.1 What is Gap Analysis?
Peter McGuire's pioneering work in the 1980s-1990s demonstrated that the structure of your analytical framework determines what you can see. His visual, multi-dimensional knowledge systems could identify "gaps" - missing connections, knowledge domains, or approaches that conventional linear frameworks systematically miss.
McGuire's Core Insight:
"Flawed analytical structures don't just produce incomplete answers - they prevent certain questions from being asked at all."
1.2 The IEA's Structural Framework
The IEA World Energy Outlook 2025 organizes its analysis around:
Primary Organizing Dimensions:
- Scenarios (Current Policies, Stated Policies, Net Zero Emissions)
- Fuel Types (Oil, Gas, Coal, Renewables, Nuclear)
- End-Use Sectors (Transport, Buildings, Industry)
- Geographic Regions (with emphasis on emerging markets)
- Technology Deployment (Solar, Wind, EVs, Heat Pumps, Hydrogen)
Primary Metrics:
- Carbon emissions (CO2 tons)
- Installed capacity (GW)
- Energy consumption by fuel type (EJ)
- Investment requirements ($)
- Temperature outcomes (°C above pre-industrial)
1.3 What This Structure Makes Invisible
This framework creates systematic blind spots for:
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 731
The Urban Heat Island Effect in London:
Implications for Energy Policy & the Case for Combined Cooling, Heat & Power via Bio-Methane
Executive Summary
"London faces a significant and worsening Urban Heat Island (UHI) challenge that current policy approaches are failing to address adequately." The city centre can be up to 10°C warmer than surrounding rural areas, with this differential intensifying at night when buildings release stored heat. This phenomenon directly increases cooling energy demand, creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop through air conditioning waste heat, and imposes substantial health and economic costs—estimated at £453-987 million annually from heat-related mortality alone.
Current policy prioritises carbon metrics over thermodynamic efficiency, inadvertently discouraging solutions that could address both objectives simultaneously. Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) systems fuelled by bio-methane offer a technically superior and policy-coherent solution that:
- Achieves 80-90% energy utilisation versus 40-50% from conventional generation
- Captures waste heat for district heating rather than rejecting it to exacerbate the UHI
- Provides cooling through absorption chillers that do not add heat to the urban environment
- Uses renewable bio-methane with negative lifecycle carbon emissions
- Integrates waste management with energy production in a circular economy model
This section presents the scientific evidence for London's UHI problem and demonstrates how CCHP via bio-methane represents a thermodynamically sound, carbon-neutral, and economically viable solution that current regulatory frameworks inexplicably discourage.
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 467
THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH ABOUT CHP:
1. CHP burns fuel ONCE to produce electricity AND useful heat SIMULTANEOUSLY
2. The Government's allocation method (1/3 heat, 2/3 electricity) is an ACCOUNTING CONVENTION
- It exists for emissions reporting and tax calculations
- It does NOT represent actual fuel division (which is impossible)
3. The REAL benefit is THERMODYNAMIC:
- CHP typically achieves 80-90% overall efficiency
- Separate generation (grid + boiler) achieves ~55-60% combined efficiency
- This means ~30-40% LESS PRIMARY FUEL for the same useful energy
4. For UK CHP in 2024:
- Total fuel input: ~60,000 GWh
- Total useful output: ~49,000 GWh (electricity + heat)
- Overall efficiency: ~82%
- Primary energy saved: ~20,000 GWh compared to separate generation
- CO2 avoided: ~3-4 million tonnes annually
5. RECOMMENDATION: Present CHP benefits as:
- Details
- Written by: J C Burke
- Hits: 356
The Efficiency Alternative:
Why Decentralized Energy Systems Beat the Renewable Subsidy Race
A Pre-Summit Analysis for the FT Energy Transition Summit 2025 - 29th and 30th October 2025
By Sun Earth Energy Ltd
As the Financial Times Energy Transition Summit convenes this coming week, CEOs, policymakers, and—critically—US investors will gather to discuss the "path to net zero." They'll hear familiar themes: massive renewable deployment, gigawatt-scale solar farms, offshore wind expansion, and the billions in subsidies needed to make it all "competitive."
But what if that entire framework is thermodynamically backwards?
The Uncomfortable Truth About Current Policy
At this year's FT Hydrogen Summit, a senior DESNZ official made a remarkable admission: the UK government's strategy involves deliberately making natural gas expensive to make alternatives like hydrogen appear "competitive."
This isn't market economics. This is industrial policy disguised as environmental necessity.
The same mechanism drives renewable energy policy:
- Add £65/MWh carbon pricing to gas generation
- Apply windfall taxes to North Sea production
- Provide 25% capital grants for solar/wind
- Guarantee prices through Contracts for Difference
- Socialize grid connection and balancing costs
Then declare renewables "cheaper than fossil fuels."
The Thermodynamic Case No One Makes