January 16, 2023

If Healthcare is a Human Right, Will the Younger Generation Provide It?

January 16, 2023/ Jane Menton

Though the [nursing] strike has since ended, my thought when I read the headlines was: Here is a legitimate concern: For years, there has been a looming shortage of healthcare workers, and of nurses specifically.
It is possible, maybe even likely, that the nursing union might exaggerate claims of a looming staffing shortage in order to strengthen its negotiating positions.
However, I maintain that we have enough social indicators from Gen Z and Millenials – that is, people in the 20-45 age range – to wonder what might happen if there comes a time when there are not enough people willing to work in industries that require difficult physical labor or emotional hardship.

January 15, 2023

Guest Post: Why Climate Skepticism Has Not Yet Succeeded

January 15, 2023/ Francis Menton

My last post from January 13 critiqued a post written by Viscount Christopher Monckton of Benchley, that had appeared at Watts Up With That on January 11. Lord Monckton requested the opportunity to reply to my post, which I granted to him. What follows is the reply written by Lord Monckton:
Climate skepticism has four failings: a lack of elementary professionalism; a tendency to be over-skeptical of both sides of the argument; a striking absence of the intuitive ability of the mathematician, who wanders cheerfully and competently from the concrete to the theoretical and back; and unjustifiable discourtesy towards the scientific labors of fellow-skeptics.

January 13, 2023

January 13, 2023/ Francis Menton

A couple of days ago (January 11, apparently shortly after midnight) on Watts Up With That, Christopher Monckton published a piece that ran under the headline “The Final Nail in the Coffin Of ‘Renewable’ Energy.” The piece contained a short and apparently elegant mathematical proof — which Monckton attributes to a guy named Douglas Pollock — of a proposition that Monckton stated as follows:

In plain English, the maximum possible fraction of total grid generation contributable by unreliables turns out to be equal to the average fraction of the nameplate capacity of those reliables [sic — should be “unreliables”?] that is realistically achievable under real-world conditions.
My immediate reaction was that that couldn’t possibly be right. . . .
This matter illustrates why, when I dabble in math in my posts, I try to stick to simple arithmetic.

January 09, 2023

January 09, 2023/ Francis Menton

Mostly I write about energy policy; but another important topic for this blog is housing policy, particular as practiced here in my home town of New York.
For reasons that might not be immediately obvious, these topics of energy and housing policy are closely related. Both involve ignorant politicians promising to supplant the imperfect freedom-based economic system and achieve utopia by using their coercive powers to order that it shall be so.
Yet somehow, utopia continues to elude us, and the government mandates only make things worse. And no lessons are ever learned.
Today’s topic is the latest in New York housing policy, and its inevitable consequences.

January 07, 2023

January 07, 2023/ Francis Menton

Supposedly, we are rapidly on our way toward a zero-carbon, all electric energy future. But has anybody done the arithmetic to see if this adds up?
I’m carving myself out a niche as the guy who does a few simple calculations to check if the grand schemes of our central planners make any sense. So far I’ve taken that approach to the question of energy storage to back up a wind/solar electricity grid, and on that one the schemes of the central planners most definitely do not add up.
But the energy storage question, although involving no math beyond basic arithmetic, does have some complexities. How about something somewhat simpler, like: If we convert our entire automobile fleet to all-electric cars, where is the electricity going to come from?

January 05, 2023

January 05, 2023/ Francis Menton

Here’s a question where I’ll bet you think the answer ought to be completely obvious: Should the purpose of government “anti-poverty” programs be to help the beneficiaries rise from poverty and become successful and independent, or alternatively should the purpose of such programs be to entice the recipients of aid into a life of permanent dependency upon government handouts?
From the earliest days of the anti-poverty programs back in the 1960s, the programs were sold to the public as being a temporary boost by which the poor could be helped to escape from poverty and achieve self-sufficiency. And yet, about six decades in, the rate of poverty never seems to go down, and the number of program beneficiaries grows inexorably. Did something change along the way?
The answer is yes.