Professor Stefan Rahmstorf and Thermodynamics – Watts Up With That?

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

By Frank Bosse
Klimnachrichten here
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)

The scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is an oceanologist and studied physics before his specialist training. He is therefore familiar with thermodynamics and its 2nd law, which states that with every change of state, the “disorder” increases, also known as entropy. This is reflected in warming. Growing entropy is a basic characteristic of our universe; without investing work, everything tends towards disorder .

You are probably familiar with this phenomenon. Growing entropy also prevents perpetual motion machines; every working machine also generates friction and thus heat and inevitably a loss of useful energy. So what does all this have to do with Stefan Rahmstorf?

He published the following post on Twitter (now X) on January 14, 2025:

Screenshot X

[In English: “Nuclear energy, whether from fusion or fission, has the problem of waste heat, just like fossil fuel energy. It is still small compared to CO2, but it will soon become a relevant warming problem with the growing energy demand by mankind.”]

In his tweet, he complains that nuclear energy generates waste heat and would therefore represent a further relevant problem for our planet, which is warming up due to greenhouse gases.

An astute reader will remember that astrophysicist Professor Harald Lesch also advocated precisely this thesis, even in a lecture to teachers(!). He failed as well to take into account that all converted energy (whether from wind, sun or thermal) ultimately leads to an increase in entropy, i.e. to heat. It all depends on the order of magnitude.

If humanity produces energy by burning carbon (which leads to the production of the “greenhouse” gas CO2), the problem is orders of magnitude higher. It reduces the escape of heat by radiation into space and accumulates its effect in the atmosphere, waste heat does not. This has long been known from the scientific literature.

What was the share of low-CO2 electricity of total consumption in Germany in January 2025?

Share of electricity produced in Germany from 
solar, wind and hydro power in total consumption

How much of the total consumption was carbon combustion, the “rest” in the chart? Unfortunately, the average for the month was 61%, or just 39% low-carbon electricity. It fluctuated between an outstanding 9% and a completely inadequate 93% if you analyze the hourly data from “Agora Energiewende”.

In Germany, 90 GW of solar power and 69 GW of low-CO2 wind power have been installed; only around half of the total renewable capacity would have been utilized if the “installed capacity” had also been available.

In reality, however, photovoltaics contributed on average only 2% to total consumption, wind 29%, fluctuating widely between 1.7 and 67%. Renewable energies alone are therefore not really suitable for solving the CO2 emissions problem. The weather at around 50° north latitude is too changeable for this. That would be the logical conclusion of “climate enthusiasts” such as Professors Stefan Rahmstorf and Harald Lesch.

And why then completely counter-physical pretexts against the likewise low-CO2 generation of electricity by nuclear power, regardless of the weather? We don’t know. We only know that they are talking nonsense in order to oppose low-CO2 technologies, which were also recommended by the “Climate Council” IPCC, 6th Assessment Report, Working Group III as a necessary supplement for renewable energies.

Doubters of the greenhouse effect are sometimes rightly accused of denying the climate problem. But what are Rahmstorf, Lesch and Co. doing when they reject everything except green energies, which alone are probably only very inadequately capable of solving the climate problem (as shown in January 2025), by swearing about physics?

They are very effectively obstructing the solution to the problem. In the end, it makes little difference to the outcome whether you don’t want to see the challenge or only accept it inadequately with the help of bogus arguments.

Related