iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-24--California: World Leading Climate Hypocrite Updated Dec. 23, 2020

California ’ s Climate Extremism Joel Kotkin reports from the Golden State .
Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
The pursuit of environmental purity in the Golden State does nothing to reverse global warming—but it ’ s costing the poor and middle class dearly .
Environmental extremism increasingly dominates California .
The state is making a concerted attack on energy companies in the courts ; a bill is pending in the legislature to fine waiters $ 1,000—or jail them—if they offer people plastic straws ; and UCLA issued a report describing pets as a climate threat .
The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting the flatulence of cows and other farm animals .
As the self-described capital of the anti-Trump resistance , California presents itself as the herald of a green , more socially and racially just society .
That view has been utterly devastated by a new report from Chapman University , in which coauthors David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez demonstrate that California ’ s draconian anti-climate-change regime has exacerbated economic , geographic , and racial inequality .
And to make things worse , California ’ s efforts to save the planet have actually done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GHG ) to other states and countries .
Jerry Brown ’ s return to Sacramento in 2011 brought back to power one of the first American politicians to embrace the “ limits of growth.
” Brown has long worried about resource depletion ( including such debunked notions as “ peak oil ” ) , taken a Malthusian approach to population growth , and opposed middle-class suburban development .
Like many climate-change activists , he has limitless confidence in the possibility for engineering a green socially just society through “ the coercive power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that humans can find ways to address the challenge of climate change .
If Brown ’ s “ era of limits ” message in the 1970s failed to catch on with the state ’ s voters , who promptly elected two Republican governors in his wake , he has found in climate change a more effective rallying cry , albeit one that often teeters at the edge of hysteria .
Few politicians can outdo Brown for alarmism ; recently , he predicted that climate change will cause 3 to 4 billion deaths , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save the planet , he openly endorses a campaign to brainwash the masses .
The result : relentless ratcheting-up of climate-change policies .
In 2016 , the state committed to reduce greenhouse-gas ( GHG ) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 .
In response , the California Air Resource Board ( CARB ) , tasked with making the rules required to achieve the state ’ s legislated goals , took the opportunity to set policies for an ( unlegislated ) target of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their policies as in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement , note Friedman and Hernandez , but California ’ s reductions under the agreement require it to make cutbacks double those pledged by Germany and other stalwart climate-committed countries , many of which have actually increased their emissions in recent years , despite their Paris pledges .
Governor Brown has preened in Paris , at the Vatican , in China , in newspapers , and on national television .
But few have considered how his policies have worked out in practice .
California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 goals ; nor is it cutting emissions faster than other states lacking such dramatic legislative mandates .
Since 2007 , when the Golden State ’ s “ landmark ” global-warming legislation was passed , California has accounted for barely 5 percent of the nation ’ s GHG reductions .
The combined total reductions achieved over the past decade by Ohio , Georgia , Pennsylvania , and Indiana are about 5 times greater than California ’ s .
Even Texas , that bogeyman of fossil-fuel excess , has been reducing its per-capita emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing that California does will have an impact on global climate .
California per-capita emissions have always been relatively low , due to the mild climate along the coast , which reduces the need for much energy consumption on heating and cooling .
In 2010 , the state accounted for less than 1 percent of global GHG emissions ; the disproportionately large reductions sought by state activists and bureaucrats would have no discernible effect on global emissions under the Paris Agreement .
“ If California ceased to exist in 2030 , ” Friedman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions would be still be 99.54 percent of the Paris Agreement total.
” Many of California ’ s “ green ” policies may make matters worse .
California , for example , does not encourage biomass energy use , though the state ’ s vast forested areas—some 33 million acres— could provide renewable energy and reduce the excessive emissions from wildfires caused by years of forest mismanagement .
Similarly , California greens have been adamant in shutting down nuclear power plants , which continue to reduce emissions in France , and they refuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , California now imports roughly one-third of its electricity from other states , the highest percentage of any state , up from 25 percent in 2010 .
This is part of what Hernandez and Friedman show to be California ’ s increasing propensity to export energy production and GHG emissions , while maintaining the fiction that the state has reduced its total carbon output .
Overall , California tends to send its “ dirty work ” —whether for making goods or in the form of fossil fuels—elsewhere .
Unwanted middle- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high cost of California ’ s green policies , leave , taking their carbon footprints to other places , many of which have much higher per-capita emission rates .
Net migration to other , less temperate states and countries has been large enough to offset the annual emissions cuts within the state .
Similarly , the state ’ s regulatory policies make it difficult for industrial firms to expand or even to remain in California .
Green-signaling firms like Apple produce most of their tangible products abroad , mainly in high-GHG emitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook and Google , tend to place energy-intensive data centers in other , higher GHG emission states .
The study estimates that GHG emissions just from California ’ s international imports in 2015 , and not even counting imports from the rest of the U.S. , amounted to about 35 percent of the state ’ s total emissions .
California ’ s green regulators predict that the implementation of ever-stricter rules related to climate will have a “ small ” impact on the economy .
They point to strong economic and job growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations are no barrier to prosperity .
Though the state ’ s economic growth is slowing , and now approaches the national average , a superficial look at aggregate performance makes a seemingly plausible case for even the most draconian legislation .
California , as the headquarters for three of the nation ’ s five largest companies by market capitalization—Alphabet , Apple , and Facebook— has enjoyed healthy GDP growth since 2010 .
But in past recoveries , the state ’ s job and income growth was widely distributed by region and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been uniquely concentrated in one region—the San Francisco Bay Area , where employment has grown by nearly 17 percent , almost three times that of the rest of the state , with growth rates tumbling compared with past decades .
Some of these inequities are tied directly to policies associated with climate change .
High electricity prices , and the war on carbon emissions generally , have undermined the state ’ s blue-collar sectors , traditionally concentrated in Los Angeles and the interior counties .
These sectors have all lost jobs since 2007 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy-related and other regulations , has declined by 160,000 jobs since 2007 .
California has benefited far less from the national industrial resurgence , particularly this past year .
Manufacturing jobs—along with those in construction and logistics , also hurt by high energy prices—have long been key to upward mobility for non-college-educated Californians .
As climate-change policies have become more stringent , California has witnessed an unprecedented level of bifurcation between a growing cadre of high-income earners and a vast , rapidly expanding poor population .
Meantime , the state ’ s percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 75,000 and $ 125,000—has fallen well below the national average .
This decline of the middle class even occurs in the Bay Area , notes a recent report from the California Budget and Policy Center , where in 1989 the middle class accounted for 56 percent of all households in Silicon Valley , but by 2013 , only 45.7 percent .
Lower-income residents accounted for 30.3 percent of Silicon Valley ’ s households in 1989 , and that number grew to 34.8 percent in 2013 .
Perhaps the most egregious impact on middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing , where environmental regulations , often tied directly to climate policies , have discouraged construction , particularly in the suburbs and exurbs .
The state ’ s determination to undo the primarily suburban , single-family development model in order to “ save the planet ” has succeeded both in raising prices well beyond national norms and creating a shortfall of some 3 million homes .
As shown in a recent UC Berkeley study , even if fully realized , the state ’ s proposals to force denser housing would only reach about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brown and his acolytes ignore the often-unpredictable consequences of their actions , insisting that density will reduce carbon emissions while improving affordability and boosting transit use .
Yet , as Los Angeles has densified under its last two mayors , transit ridership has continued to drop , in part , notes a another UC Berkeley report , because incentives for real-estate speculation have driven the area ’ s predominantly poor transit riders further from trains and buses , forcing many to purchase cars .
Undaunted , California plans to impose even stricter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar panels on new houses , which could raise prices by roughly $ 20,000 per home .
This is only the latest in a series of actions that undermines the aspirations of people who still seek “ the California dream ; ” since 2007 , California homeownership rates have dropped far more than the national average .
By 2016 , the overall homeownership rate in the state was just under 54 percent , compared with 64 percent in the rest of the country .
The groups most affected by these policies , ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives rely for electoral majorities .
Millennials have seen a more rapid decline in homeownership rates compared with their cohort elsewhere .
But the biggest declines have been among historically disadvantaged minorities—Latinos and African-Americans .
Latino homeownership rates in California are well below the national average .
In 2016 , only 31 percent of African-Americans in the Bay Area owned homes , well below the already low rate of 41 percent black homeownership in the rest of nation .
Worse yet , the state takes no account of the impact of these policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California declined in the decade before 2007 , but the state ’ s poverty numbers have risen during the current boom .
Today , 8 million Californians live in poverty , including 2 million children , by far the most of any state .
The state ’ s largest city , Los Angeles , is also now by some measurements America ’ s poorest big city .
To allay concerns about housing affordability , the state has allocated about $ 300 million from its cap-and-trade funds for housing , a meager amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing in urban areas can exceed $ 700,000 per unit .
These benefits are dwarfed by those that wealthy Californians enjoy for the purchase of electric cars and home solar : Tesla car buyers with average incomes of $ 320,000 per year got more than $ 300 million in federal and state subsidies by early 2015 alone .
By contrast , in early 2018 , state electricity prices were 58 percent higher , and gasoline over 90 cents per gallon higher , than the national average , disproportionately hurting ethnic minorities , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based on cost-of-living estimation tools from the Census Bureau , 28 percent of African-Americans in the state live in poverty , compared with 22 percent nationally .
Fully one-third of Latinos , now the state ’ s largest ethnic group , live in poverty , compared with 21 percent outside the state .
In a normal political environment , such disparities would spark debate , not only among conservatives , but also traditional Democrats .
Some , like failed independent candidate and longtime environmentalist Michael Shellenberger , have expressed the view that California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the most progressive state ” but “ the most racist one.
” Recently , some 200 veteran civil rights leaders sued CARB , on the basis that state policies are skewed against the poor and minorities .
So far , their voices have been largely ignored .
The state ’ s prospective next governor , Gavin Newsom , seems eager to embrace and expand Brown ’ s policies , and few in the legislature seem likely to challenge them .
The Republicans , for now , look incapable of mounting a challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path toward greater class and racial divides , increasing poverty , and ever-more strenuous regulation .
Other ways to reduce greenhouse gases—such as planting trees , more efficient transportation , and making suburbs more sustainable—should be on the table .
The Hernandez-Friedman report could be a first step toward addressing these issues , but however it happens , a return to rationality is needed in the Golden State .
Joel Kotkin serves as Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism ( COU ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story as 2020 ends in his article Peak Progressive ?
at the American Mind .
Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
With adjustment for cost of living , California now has the highest overall poverty rate in the United States according to the Census Bureau .
Los Angeles , by far the state ’ s largest metropolitan area , has among the highest poverty rates for the largest U.S. metros .
In parts of Los Angeles , the growing homeless encampments have spawned medieval diseases such as typhus .
There are even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the signature scourge of the Middle Ages .
Hispanics and African Americans , who constitute 45 % of the state ’ s population , do far worse here than elsewhere .
Based on cost-of-living estimation tools from the Census Bureau , 28 % of African Americans in the state live in poverty , compared with 22 % nationally .
Fully one third of Hispanics , the state ’ s largest ethnic group , are below the poverty line , compared with 21 % outside the state .
Over two thirds of noncitizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at or below the poverty line .
The pandemic has widened this divide .
The state ’ s unemployment rates now surpass the national average , making them worse even than in New York , the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak .
L.A. County has lost over 1 million jobs to the pandemic and suffers an unemployment rate higher than any of the major California urban counties .
Today in Los Angeles , violent crime is spiking , and less than half of residents now hold jobs .
Since the pandemic , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles–Orange County , has suffered the second most job losses in the U.S. Two others , the Bay Area and the Inland Empire , rank in the top ten .
Now the state seems poised to lose much of its tech economy , which has been the one force keeping it afloat .
Yet it is ever more clear to ever more Californians that our state is becoming exactly the vast gated community Newsom warns about .
As Ali Modarres showed in “ The Demographic Transformation of California ” ( 2003 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pat Brown years were based on a broad-based economy spanning the gamut from agriculture and oil to aerospace and finance , software , and basic manufacturing .
In contrast , the Newsom progressive model is built largely around one industry—high tech—which provides increasingly little opportunity for most Californians , and now shows disturbing signs of moving elsewhere .
Current progressive policies are chasing key companies out of the state—including , just within the last week , tech giants Tesla , Hewlett Packard Enterprises , and Oracle , all of which are heading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state ’ s fading appeal to outsiders .
It is losing domestic migrants and , increasingly , losing appeal to immigrants as well .
California retains many of its great assets—a huge concentration of technical talent , a robust grassroots economy , unmatched physical beauty , and a remarkably pleasant climate—but these are being increasingly squandered .
The question now is whether Californians will challenge the status quo .

Update below Dec. 23, 2020 Has Progressive Californication Peaked?
California’s Climate Extremism
Joel Kotkin reports from the Golden State. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The pursuit of environmental purity in the Golden State does nothing to reverse global warming—but it’s costing the poor and middle class dearly.
Environmental extremism increasingly dominates California. The state is making a concerted attack on energy companies in the courts; a bill is pending in the legislature to fine waiters $1,000—or jail them—if they offer people plastic straws; and UCLA issued a report describing pets as a climate threat. The state has taken upon itself the mission of limiting the flatulence of cows and other farm animals. As the self-described capital of the anti-Trump resistance, California presents itself as the herald of a green, more socially and racially just society. That view has been utterly devastated by a new report from Chapman University, in which coauthors David Friedman and Jennifer Hernandez demonstrate that California’s draconian anti-climate-change regime has exacerbated economic, geographic, and racial inequality. And to make things worse, California’s efforts to save the planet have actually done little more than divert greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG) to other states and countries.
Jerry Brown’s return to Sacramento in 2011 brought back to power one of the first American politicians to embrace the “limits of growth.” Brown has long worried about resource depletion (including such debunked notions as “peak oil”), taken a Malthusian approach to population growth, and opposed middle-class suburban development. Like many climate-change activists, he has limitless confidence in the possibility for engineering a green socially just society through “the coercive power of the state,” but little faith that humans can find ways to address the challenge of climate change. If Brown’s “era of limits” message in the 1970s failed to catch on with the state’s voters, who promptly elected two Republican governors in his wake, he has found in climate change a more effective rallying cry, albeit one that often teeters at the edge of hysteria. Few politicians can outdo Brown for alarmism; recently, he predicted that climate change will cause 3 to 4 billion deaths, leading eventually to human extinction. To save the planet, he openly endorses a campaign to brainwash the masses.
The result: relentless ratcheting-up of climate-change policies. In 2016, the state committed to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In response, the California Air Resource Board (CARB), tasked with making the rules required to achieve the state’s legislated goals, took the opportunity to set policies for an (unlegislated) target of an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
Brown and his supporters often tout their policies as in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, note Friedman and Hernandez, but California’s reductions under the agreement require it to make cutbacks double those pledged by Germany and other stalwart climate-committed countries, many of which have actually increased their emissions in recent years, despite their Paris pledges.
Governor Brown has preened in Paris, at the Vatican, in China, in newspapers, and on national television. But few have considered how his policies have worked out in practice. California is unlikely to achieve even its modest 2020 goals; nor is it cutting emissions faster than other states lacking such dramatic legislative mandates. Since 2007, when the Golden State’s “landmark” global-warming legislation was passed, California has accounted for barely 5 percent of the nation’s GHG reductions. The combined total reductions achieved over the past decade by Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Indiana are about 5 times greater than California’s. Even Texas, that bogeyman of fossil-fuel excess, has been reducing its per-capita emissions more rapidly.
In fact, virtually nothing that California does will have an impact on global climate. California per-capita emissions have always been relatively low, due to the mild climate along the coast, which reduces the need for much energy consumption on heating and cooling. In 2010, the state accounted for less than 1 percent of global GHG emissions; the disproportionately large reductions sought by state activists and bureaucrats would have no discernible effect on global emissions under the Paris Agreement. “If California ceased to exist in 2030,” Friedman and Hernandez note, “global GHG emissions would be still be 99.54 percent of the Paris Agreement total.”
Many of California’s “green” policies may make matters worse. California, for example, does not encourage biomass energy use, though the state’s vast forested areas—some 33 million acres— could provide renewable energy and reduce the excessive emissions from wildfires caused by years of forest mismanagement. Similarly, California greens have been adamant in shutting down nuclear power plants, which continue to reduce emissions in France, and they refuse to count hydro-electricity as renewable energy. As a result, California now imports roughly one-third of its electricity from other states, the highest percentage of any state, up from 25 percent in 2010. This is part of what Hernandez and Friedman show to be California’s increasing propensity to export energy production and GHG emissions, while maintaining the fiction that the state has reduced its total carbon output.
Overall, California tends to send its “dirty work”—whether for making goods or in the form of fossil fuels—elsewhere. Unwanted middle- and working-class people, driven out by the high cost of California’s green policies, leave, taking their carbon footprints to other places, many of which have much higher per-capita emission rates. Net migration to other, less temperate states and countries has been large enough to offset the annual emissions cuts within the state. Similarly, the state’s regulatory policies make it difficult for industrial firms to expand or even to remain in California. Green-signaling firms like Apple produce most of their tangible products abroad, mainly in high-GHG emitting China, while other companies, like Facebook and Google, tend to place energy-intensive data centers in other, higher GHG emission states. The study estimates that GHG emissions just from California’s international imports in 2015, and not even counting imports from the rest of the U.S., amounted to about 35 percent of the state’s total emissions.
California’s green regulators predict that the implementation of ever-stricter rules related to climate will have a “small” impact on the economy. They point to strong economic and job growth in recent years as evidence that strict regulations are no barrier to prosperity. Though the state’s economic growth is slowing, and now approaches the national average, a superficial look at aggregate performance makes a seemingly plausible case for even the most draconian legislation. California, as the headquarters for three of the nation’s five largest companies by market capitalization—Alphabet, Apple, and Facebook— has enjoyed healthy GDP growth since 2010. But in past recoveries, the state’s job and income growth was widely distributed by region and economic class; since 2007, growth has been uniquely concentrated in one region—the San Francisco Bay Area, where employment has grown by nearly 17 percent, almost three times that of the rest of the state, with growth rates tumbling compared with past decades.
Some of these inequities are tied directly to policies associated with climate change. High electricity prices, and the war on carbon emissions generally, have undermined the state’s blue-collar sectors, traditionally concentrated in Los Angeles and the interior counties. These sectors have all lost jobs since 2007. Manufacturing employment, highly sensitive to energy-related and other regulations, has declined by 160,000 jobs since 2007. California has benefited far less from the national industrial resurgence, particularly this past year. Manufacturing jobs—along with those in construction and logistics, also hurt by high energy prices—have long been key to upward mobility for non-college-educated Californians.
As climate-change policies have become more stringent, California has witnessed an unprecedented level of bifurcation between a growing cadre of high-income earners and a vast, rapidly expanding poor population. Meantime, the state’s percentage of middle-income earners— people making between $75,000 and $125,000—has fallen well below the national average. This decline of the middle class even occurs in the Bay Area, notes a recent report from the California Budget and Policy Center, where in 1989 the middle class accounted for 56 percent of all households in Silicon Valley, but by 2013, only 45.7 percent. Lower-income residents accounted for 30.3 percent of Silicon Valley’s households in 1989, and that number grew to 34.8 percent in 2013.
Perhaps the most egregious impact on middle and working-class residents can be seen in housing, where environmental regulations, often tied directly to climate policies, have discouraged construction, particularly in the suburbs and exurbs. The state’s determination to undo the primarily suburban, single-family development model in order to “save the planet” has succeeded both in raising prices well beyond national norms and creating a shortfall of some 3 million homes.
As shown in a recent UC Berkeley study, even if fully realized, the state’s proposals to force denser housing would only reach about 1 percent of its 2030 emissions goals. Brown and his acolytes ignore the often-unpredictable consequences of their actions, insisting that density will reduce carbon emissions while improving affordability and boosting transit use. Yet, as Los Angeles has densified under its last two mayors, transit ridership has continued to drop, in part, notes a another UC Berkeley report, because incentives for real-estate speculation have driven the area’s predominantly poor transit riders further from trains and buses, forcing many to purchase cars.
Undaunted, California plans to impose even stricter regulations, including the mandatory installation of solar panels on new houses, which could raise prices by roughly $20,000 per home. This is only the latest in a series of actions that undermines the aspirations of people who still seek “the California dream;” since 2007, California homeownership rates have dropped far more than the national average. By 2016, the overall homeownership rate in the state was just under 54 percent, compared with 64 percent in the rest of the country.
The groups most affected by these policies, ironically, are those on whom the ruling progressives rely for electoral majorities. Millennials have seen a more rapid decline in homeownership rates compared with their cohort elsewhere. But the biggest declines have been among historically disadvantaged minorities—Latinos and African-Americans. Latino homeownership rates in California are well below the national average. In 2016, only 31 percent of African-Americans in the Bay Area owned homes, well below the already low rate of 41 percent black homeownership in the rest of nation. Worse yet, the state takes no account of the impact of these policies on poorer Californians. Overall poverty rates in California declined in the decade before 2007, but the state’s poverty numbers have risen during the current boom. Today, 8 million Californians live in poverty, including 2 million children, by far the most of any state. The state’s largest city, Los Angeles, is also now by some measurements America’s poorest big city.
To allay concerns about housing affordability, the state has allocated about $300 million from its cap-and-trade funds for housing, a meager amount given that the cost of building affordable housing in urban areas can exceed $700,000 per unit. These benefits are dwarfed by those that wealthy Californians enjoy for the purchase of electric cars and home solar: Tesla car buyers with average incomes of $320,000 per year got more than $300 million in federal and state subsidies by early 2015 alone. By contrast, in early 2018, state electricity prices were 58 percent higher, and gasoline over 90 cents per gallon higher, than the national average, disproportionately hurting ethnic minorities, the working class, and the poor. Based on cost-of-living estimation tools from the Census Bureau, 28 percent of African-Americans in the state live in poverty, compared with 22 percent nationally. Fully one-third of Latinos, now the state’s largest ethnic group, live in poverty, compared with 21 percent outside the state.
In a normal political environment, such disparities would spark debate, not only among conservatives, but also traditional Democrats. Some, like failed independent candidate and longtime environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, have expressed the view that California’s policies have made it not “the most progressive state” but “the most racist one.” Recently, some 200 veteran civil rights leaders sued CARB, on the basis that state policies are skewed against the poor and minorities. So far, their voices have been largely ignored. The state’s prospective next governor, Gavin Newsom, seems eager to embrace and expand Brown’s policies, and few in the legislature seem likely to challenge them. The Republicans, for now, look incapable of mounting a challenge.
This leaves California on a perilous path toward greater class and racial divides, increasing poverty, and ever-more strenuous regulation. Other ways to reduce greenhouse gases—such as planting trees, more efficient transportation, and making suburbs more sustainable—should be on the table. The Hernandez-Friedman report could be a first step toward addressing these issues, but however it happens, a return to rationality is needed in the Golden State.
Joel Kotkin serves as Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism (COU).
Update Dec. 23, 2020 Has Progressive Californication Peaked?
Joel Kotkin has updated the California story as 2020 ends in his article Peak Progressive? at the American Mind. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
With adjustment for cost of living, California now has the highest overall poverty rate in the United States according to the Census Bureau. Los Angeles, by far the state’s largest metropolitan area, has among the highest poverty rates for the largest U.S. metros. In parts of Los Angeles, the growing homeless encampments have spawned medieval diseases such as typhus. There are even indications of a comeback for bubonic plague, the signature scourge of the Middle Ages.
Hispanics and African Americans, who constitute 45% of the state’s population, do far worse here than elsewhere. Based on cost-of-living estimation tools from the Census Bureau, 28% of African Americans in the state live in poverty, compared with 22% nationally. Fully one third of Hispanics, the state’s largest ethnic group, are below the poverty line, compared with 21% outside the state. Over two thirds of noncitizen Latinos, including the undocumented, live at or below the poverty line.
The pandemic has widened this divide. The state’s unemployment rates now surpass the national average, making them worse even than in New York, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak. L.A. County has lost over 1 million jobs to the pandemic and suffers an unemployment rate higher than any of the major California urban counties. Today in Los Angeles, violent crime is spiking, and less than half of residents now hold jobs. Since the pandemic, the state’s largest metro, Los Angeles–Orange County, has suffered the second most job losses in the U.S. Two others, the Bay Area and the Inland Empire, rank in the top ten.
Now the state seems poised to lose much of its tech economy, which has been the one force keeping it afloat.
Yet it is ever more clear to ever more Californians that our state is becoming exactly the vast gated community Newsom warns about. As Ali Modarres showed in “The Demographic Transformation of California” (2003), the “shared prosperity” of the Pat Brown years were based on a broad-based economy spanning the gamut from agriculture and oil to aerospace and finance, software, and basic manufacturing. In contrast, the Newsom progressive model is built largely around one industry—high tech—which provides increasingly little opportunity for most Californians, and now shows disturbing signs of moving elsewhere.
Current progressive policies are chasing key companies out of the state—including, just within the last week, tech giants Tesla, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, and Oracle, all of which are heading to Texas. But the real problem lies in the state’s fading appeal to outsiders. It is losing domestic migrants and, increasingly, losing appeal to immigrants as well. California retains many of its great assets—a huge concentration of technical talent, a robust grassroots economy, unmatched physical beauty, and a remarkably pleasant climate—but these are being increasingly squandered. The question now is whether Californians will challenge the status quo.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/37Mjtyf
December 24, 2020 at 09:55AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-24--Worlds first flying car costs $400k. Now on the road, if not in the air.

NottheBee report that this is road certified for the EU , but not “ air certified ” yet .
I @ @ @ @ @ may be the barrier to this selling en masse in 2022 .
… Just for @ @ @ @ @ to New Zealand and the East Coast of Australia h/t Panda …

NottheBee report that this is road certified for the EU, but not “air certified” yet. I suspect getting a pilots license may be the barrier to this selling en masse in 2022. …
Just for something different.
Merry Christmas to New Zealand and the East Coast of Australia h/t Panda …
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3nI7xDj
December 24, 2020 at 08:42AM


Happy Xmas

Merry Christmas to you all .
Thank you for your support and contributions throughout the year , and I wish @ @ @ @ @ new year .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Merry Christmas to you all.
.
Thank you for your support and contributions throughout the year, and I wish everybody a happy and successful new year.
.
Paul
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3hlegRo
December 25, 2020 at 05:06AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-25--Korean artificial sun, KSTAR, sets the new world record of 20-sec-long operation at 100 million °C

Aims to continuously operate high-temperature plasma over the 100-million-degree for 300 seconds by 2025 The Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research ( KSTAR ) , a superconducting fusion device also known as the Korean artificial sun , set the new world record as it succeeded in maintaining the high temperature plasma for 20 seconds with an ion temperature over 100 million degrees .
On November 24 ( Tuesday ) , the KSTAR Research Center at the Korea Institute of Fusion Energy ( KEF ) announced that in a joint research with the Seoul National University ( SNU ) and Columbia University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in continuous operation of plasma for 20 seconds with an ion-temperature higher than 100 million degrees , which is one of the core conditions of nuclear fusion in the 2020 KSTAR Plasma Campaign It is an achievement to extend the 8 second plasma operation time during the 2019 KSTAR Plasma Campaign by more than 2 times .
In its 2018 experiment , the KSTAR reached the plasma ion temperature of 100 million degrees for the first time ( retention time : about 1.5 seconds ) To re-create fusion reactions that occur in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be placed inside a fusion device like KSTAR to create a plasma state where ions and electrons are separated , and ions must be heated and maintained at high temperatures .
So far , there have been other fusion devices that have briefly managed plasma at temperatures of 100 million degrees or higher .
None of them broke the barrier of maintaining the operation for 10 seconds or longer .
It is the operational limit of normal-conducting device* and it was difficult maintain a stable plasma state in the fusion device at such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ * Limits of a Normal Conduction Device : Unlike the KSTAR , a fusion device that features a superconducting magnet , the existing fusion devices based on normal-conducting magnets such as copper can not be operated for an extended period of time because when a high electric current runs through the magnet to create magnetic field that is strong enough to confine plasma , the magnet becomes overheated due to its resistance .
In its 2020 experiment , the KSTAR improved the performance of the Internal Transport Barrier ( ITB ) mode , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modes developed last year and succeeded in maintaining the plasma state for a long period of time , overcoming the existing limits of the ultra-high-temperature plasma operation .
Director Si-Woo Yoon of the KSTAR Research Center at the KFE explained , “ The technologies required for long operations of 100 million- plasma are the key to the realization of fusion energy , and the KSTAR ’ s success in maintaining the high-temperature plasma for 20 seconds will be an important turning point in the race for securing the technologies for the long high-performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a commercial nuclear fusion reactor in the future.
” “ The success of the KSTAR experiment in the long , high-temperature operation by overcoming some drawbacks of the ITB modes brings us a step closer to the development of technologies for realization of nuclear fusion energy , ” added Yong-Su Na , professor at the department of Nuclear Engineering , SNU , who has been jointly conducting the research on the KSTAR plasma operation .
Dr. Young-Seok Park of Columbia University who contributed to the creation of the high temperature plasma said “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an important achievement made in KSTAR .
The 100 million-degree ion temperature achieved by enabling efficient core plasma heating for such a long duration demonstrated the unique capability of the superconducting KSTAR device , and will be acknowledged as a compelling basis for high performance , steady state fusion plasmas.
” The KSTAR began operating the device last August and plans to continue its plasma generation experiment until December 10 , conducting a total of 110 plasma experiments that include high-performance plasma operation and plasma disruption mitigation experiments , which are joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations .
In addition to the success in high temperature plasma operation , the KSTAR Research Center conducts experiments on a variety of topics , including ITER researches , designed to solve complex problems in fusion research during the remainder of the experiment period .
The KSTAR is going to share its key experiment outcomes in 2020 including this success with fusion researchers across the world in the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference which will be held in May .
The final goal of the KSTAR is to succeed in a continuous operation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100 million degrees by 2025 .
KFE President Suk Jae Yoo stated , “ I am so glad to announce the new launch of the KFE as an independent research organization of Korea ” “ the KFE will continue its tradition of under-taking challenging researches to achieve the goal of mankind : the realization of nuclear fusion energy , ” he continued .
As of November 20 , 2020 , the KFE , formerly the National Fusion Research Institute , an affiliated organization of the Korea Basic Science Institute , was re-launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information on KFE and KSTAR , visit : https : //www.kfe.re.kr/eng/index To download the pictures of KSTAR , follow this link : https : //www.kfe.re.kr/eng/post/eng_photo The Korea Institute of Fusion Energy ( KFE ) is Korea ’ s only research institute specializing in nuclear fusion .
Based on our development and operation of KSTAR , a superconducting fusion research device , the KFE seeks to achieve groundbreaking research results , develop core technology for commercializing nuclear fusion , and train outstanding nuclear fusion personnel .
In addition , the institute is spearheading a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear fusion energy in the mid-21st century through active participation in the ITER Project .

Aims to continuously operate high-temperature plasma over the 100-million-degree for 300 seconds by 2025
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Science Business Announcement
The Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research(KSTAR), a superconducting fusion device also known as the Korean artificial sun, set the new world record as it succeeded in maintaining the high temperature plasma for 20 seconds with an ion temperature over 100 million degrees.
On November 24(Tuesday), the KSTAR Research Center at the Korea Institute of Fusion Energy (KEF) announced that in a joint research with the Seoul National University (SNU) and Columbia University of the United States, it succeeded in continuous operation of plasma for 20 seconds with an ion-temperature higher than 100 million degrees, which is one of the core conditions of nuclear fusion in the 2020 KSTAR Plasma Campaign
It is an achievement to extend the 8 second plasma operation time during the 2019 KSTAR Plasma Campaign by more than 2 times. In its 2018 experiment, the KSTAR reached the plasma ion temperature of 100 million degrees for the first time (retention time: about 1.5 seconds)
To re-create fusion reactions that occur in the sun on Earth, hydrogen isotopes must be placed inside a fusion device like KSTAR to create a plasma state where ions and electrons are separated, and ions must be heated and maintained at high temperatures.
So far, there have been other fusion devices that have briefly managed plasma at temperatures of 100 million degrees or higher. None of them broke the barrier of maintaining the operation for 10 seconds or longer. It is the operational limit of normal-conducting device* and it was difficult maintain a stable plasma state in the fusion device at such high temperatures for a long time.
* Limits of a Normal Conduction Device: Unlike the KSTAR, a fusion device that features a superconducting magnet, the existing fusion devices based on normal-conducting magnets such as copper cannot be operated for an extended period of time because when a high electric current runs through the magnet to create magnetic field that is strong enough to confine plasma, the magnet becomes overheated due to its resistance.
In its 2020 experiment, the KSTAR improved the performance of the Internal Transport Barrier(ITB) mode, one of the next generation plasma operation modes developed last year and succeeded in maintaining the plasma state for a long period of time, overcoming the existing limits of the ultra-high-temperature plasma operation.
Director Si-Woo Yoon of the KSTAR Research Center at the KFE explained, “The technologies required for long operations of 100 million- plasma are the key to the realization of fusion energy, and the KSTAR’s success in maintaining the high-temperature plasma for 20 seconds will be an important turning point in the race for securing the technologies for the long high-performance plasma operation, a critical component of a commercial nuclear fusion reactor in the future.”
“The success of the KSTAR experiment in the long, high-temperature operation by overcoming some drawbacks of the ITB modes brings us a step closer to the development of technologies for realization of nuclear fusion energy,” added Yong-Su Na, professor at the department of Nuclear Engineering, SNU, who has been jointly conducting the research on the KSTAR plasma operation.
Dr. Young-Seok Park of Columbia University who contributed to the creation of the high temperature plasma said “We are honored to be involved in such an important achievement made in KSTAR. The 100 million-degree ion temperature achieved by enabling efficient core plasma heating for such a long duration demonstrated the unique capability of the superconducting KSTAR device, and will be acknowledged as a compelling basis for high performance, steady state fusion plasmas.”
The KSTAR began operating the device last August and plans to continue its plasma generation experiment until December 10, conducting a total of 110 plasma experiments that include high-performance plasma operation and plasma disruption mitigation experiments, which are joint research experiments with domestic and overseas research organizations.
In addition to the success in high temperature plasma operation, the KSTAR Research Center conducts experiments on a variety of topics, including ITER researches, designed to solve complex problems in fusion research during the remainder of the experiment period.
The KSTAR is going to share its key experiment outcomes in 2020 including this success with fusion researchers across the world in the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference which will be held in May.
The final goal of the KSTAR is to succeed in a continuous operation of 300 seconds with an ion temperature higher than 100 million degrees by 2025.
KFE President Suk Jae Yoo stated, “I am so glad to announce the new launch of the KFE as an independent research organization of Korea” “the KFE will continue its tradition of under-taking challenging researches to achieve the goal of mankind: the realization of nuclear fusion energy,” he continued.
As of November 20, 2020, the KFE, formerly the National Fusion Research Institute, an affiliated organization of the Korea Basic Science Institute, was re-launched as an independent research organization
###
For more information on KFE and KSTAR, visit: https://www.kfe.re.kr/eng/index
To download the pictures of KSTAR, follow this link : https://www.kfe.re.kr/eng/post/eng_photo
The Korea Institute of Fusion Energy(KFE) is Korea’s only research institute specializing in nuclear fusion. Based on our development and operation of KSTAR, a superconducting fusion research device, the KFE seeks to achieve groundbreaking research results, develop core technology for commercializing nuclear fusion, and train outstanding nuclear fusion personnel. In addition, the institute is spearheading a joint effort to open the era of nuclear fusion energy in the mid-21st century through active participation in the ITER Project.
From EurekAlert!
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-25--Merry Christmas to all

Merry Christmas to all

Wishing you all the best , wherever you are .
This painting from circa 1150 AD in Deutsch : Mosaiken @ @ @ @ @ , Szene : Christi Geburt , by Meister der Palastkapelle in Palermo .
From Jo @ @ @

Wishing you all the best, wherever you are.
The long tradition lives on.
This painting from circa 1150 AD in Deutsch: Mosaiken der Capella Palatina in Palermo, Szene: Christi Geburt, by Meister der Palastkapelle in Palermo.
Cheers!
From Jo and the moderators
Image: Wikimedia
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3hfx6JD
December 25, 2020 at 12:56AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-25--Climate Scientists to Request Political Representation on the Arctic Council

Climate scientists are planning to request political representation in the form of an “ Arctic Ambassador ” so they can remind other members of the council that the melting Arctic is not just a free for all resource opportunity .
According to the 2020 Arctic Report Card released by NOAA in December , things are pretty bad .
The report , an annual compilation of peer-reviewed science ( not Twitter or editorial opinions ) , is produced by over 120 scientists from 15 countries .
Key highlights ( or “ lowlights ” ) included : • The average annual land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second-warmest since the beginning of the record-keeping era in began in 1900 .
• 90 % of the past 10 years had air temperatures at least 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit greater the 1981-2010 mean .
• The second-lowest Arctic minimum sea ice extent in the satellite era .
• Warnings about extreme wildfires in the Arctic .
An open letter is being drafted by scientists calling for an Arctic Ambassador with a climate background to be appointed to the Arctic Council .
Dr. Twila Moon is a climate expert in the National Snow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Colorado .
In an email submitted to a listserve called Cryolist , she said , “ We believe this will raise the profile of Arctic research within the global climate change conversation , and generally increase U.S. engagement on international Arctic climate issues.
” According to Moon , the United States has not had senior level representation on the Council since Admiral Robert J. Papp departed at the end of Obama Administration at the end of the Obama Administration .
Moon also said , “ Appointing an Arctic Ambassador to the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Arctic is merely a region of future battles over resources in a world that has lost the battle against runaway global warming.
” While she acknowledged critics might be concerned about a political appointment that could lead to a bad apple or have challenges of maintaining longevity along with rank , she doesn ’ t think that it is a showstopper .
She also believes the May 2021 Arctic Council Ministerial is an early opportunity for the U.S. to signal both a renewed climate commitment , and reengagement with Arctic partners .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 193 U.S.-based scientists have already signed the letter .
The Arctic Council was set up so the representatives of large groups of people can settle their differences through dialog rather than military action .
There does not appear to be much genuine support for climate action on the Arctic Council .
For example Russia ’ s President Vladimir Putin seems to think western fears of global warming are a joke , except maybe when it suits him to look like he cares .
Many of Russia ’ s scientists think the world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that , Russia might vote to add a climate ambassador , for the entertainment value of watching climate woke members of the council squirm .

Climate scientists are planning to request political representation in the form of an “Arctic Ambassador” so they can remind other members of the council that the melting Arctic is not just a free for all resource opportunity.
A Bold Request As Climate Change Ravages The Arctic Marshall Shepherd
Dec 23, 2020,09:47am EST According to the 2020 Arctic Report Card released by NOAA in December, things are pretty bad. The report, an annual compilation of peer-reviewed science (not Twitter or editorial opinions), is produced by over 120 scientists from 15 countries. Key highlights (or “lowlights”) included: The average annual land surface air temperature in the Arctic was the second-warmest since the beginning of the record-keeping era in began in 1900.
90% of the past 10 years had air temperatures at least 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit greater the 1981-2010 mean.
Record low June snow extent across the Eurasian Arctic.
The second-lowest Arctic minimum sea ice extent in the satellite era.
Warnings about extreme wildfires in the Arctic. … An open letter is being drafted by scientists calling for an Arctic Ambassador with a climate background to be appointed to the Arctic Council. Dr. Twila Moon is a climate expert in the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. In an email submitted to a listserve called Cryolist, she said, “We believe this will raise the profile of Arctic research within the global climate change conversation, and generally increase U.S. engagement on international Arctic climate issues.” According to Moon, the United States has not had senior level representation on the Council since Admiral Robert J. Papp departed at the end of Obama Administration at the end of the Obama Administration. … Moon also said, “Appointing an Arctic Ambassador to the Arctic Council will counter a dangerous narrative that the Arctic is merely a region of future battles over resources in a world that has lost the battle against runaway global warming.” While she acknowledged critics might be concerned about a political appointment that could lead to a bad apple or have challenges of maintaining longevity along with rank, she doesn’t think that it is a showstopper. She also believes the May 2021 Arctic Council Ministerial is an early opportunity for the U.S. to signal both a renewed climate commitment, and reengagement with Arctic partners. According to a Tweet by Moon, 193 U.S.-based scientists have already signed the letter. … Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2020/12/23/a-bold-request-as-climate-change-ravages-the-arctic/
The Arctic Council was set up so the representatives of large groups of people can settle their differences through dialog rather than military action.
There does not appear to be much genuine support for climate action on the Arctic Council. For example Russia’s President Vladimir Putin seems to think western fears of global warming are a joke, except maybe when it suits him to look like he cares. Many of Russia’s scientists think the world is not experiencing dangerous global warming. Having said that, Russia might vote to add a climate ambassador, for the entertainment value of watching climate woke members of the council squirm.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-25--New York can’t buy its way out of blackouts

New York City will soon be home to the world ’ s biggest utility-scale battery system , designed to back up its growing reliance on intermittent renewables .
At 400 MWh this batch of batteries will be more than triple the 129 MWh world leader in Australia .
The City of New York ’ s director of sustainability ( I am not making this title up ) , Mark Chambers , is ecstatic , bragging : “ Expanding battery storage is a critical part of how we advance momentum to confront the climate emergency while meeting the energy needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement demonstrates how we can deliver this need at significant scale.
” ( Emphasis added ) In reality the scale here is incredibly insignificant .
In the same nonsensical way , Tim Cawley , the president of Con Edison , New York ’ s power utility , gushes thus : “ Utility scale battery storage will play a vital role in New York ’ s clean energy future , especially in New York City where it will help to maximize the benefit of the wind power being developed offshore.
” This puts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality when it comes to the scale needed to reliably back up intermittent renewables .
For simplicity let us suppose New York City is 100 % wind powered .
Including solar in the generating mix makes it more complicated but does not change the unhappy outcome very much .
NYC presently peaks at around 32,000 MW needed to keep the lights on .
If Mr. Biden makes all the cars and trucks electric it might be closer to 50,000 MW but let ’ s stick to reality .
This peak occurs during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stagnant high pressure systems called Bermuda highs .
These highs often last for a week and because they are stagnant there is no wind power generation .
Wind turbines require something like sustained winds of 10 mph to move the blades and more like a whistling 30 mph to generate full power .
During a Bermuda high folks are happy to get the occasional 5 mph breeze .
These huge highs cover many states so it is not like we can get the juice from next door .
So for reliability we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is 168 hours .
Here ’ s the math : 32,000 MW x 168 hours = 5,376,000 MWh of stored juice needed to just make it .
Mind you for normal reliability we usually add 20 % or so .
Did I mention electric cars ?
It is easy to see that a trivial 400 MWh is not “ significant scale.
” It is infinitesimal scale .
Nothing .
Nada .
Might as well not exist .
[ I estimate 45 seconds of backup power from the facility .
Someone correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More specifically , 5,376,000 divided by 400 = 13,440 so only 13,439 more to go .
On the other hand , this measly 400 MWh battery array may well cost half a billion dollars , which is significant , especially to the New Yorkers who will pay for it .
No cost figures are given because the system is privately owned , but EIA reports that the average utility scale battery system runs around $ 1.5 million a MWh of storage capacity .
That works out to $ 600 million for this insignificant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reliably back up wind power , at this MWh cost and NYC ’ s scale ?
Just over $ 8,000,000,000,000 or EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS .
I have not seen this stupendous sum mentioned in the media .
Perhaps Con Ed has not mentioned it .
Then too , New York State has the same problem .
Only much bigger if New York City is included , which it often is .
But hey , maybe the cost will come down a few trillion .
Not if we create a seller ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is certainly where we are headed .
After all , this is just New York City .
Imagine what backing up America with batteries might cost .
Don ’ t bother because it is impossible .
I should also add that we have no idea how to make 5 million MWh of batteries work together .
The tiny 400 will be a challenge .
It may not be possible .
Maybe fracked geothermal , the reliable renewable , is the answer .
Or how about coal , oil , gas and nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of fashion .
All of this battery backup hype is a scam , and not just in New York either .
The papers are full of this con , from coast to coast .
The utilities know perfectly well that these loudly touted battery buys are a hoax , but they are getting rich building the wind and solar systems the politicians are calling for .
The voters are oblivious to these impossible numbers , since they are told that intermittent wind and solar are cheaper than reliable coal , gas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bright and the wind blows hard , which is not all that often .
Reality is just sitting there , waiting .
It can ’ t work so it won ’ t work .
At this point it is just a question of how and when we find out the hard way

By David Wojick
New York City will soon be home to the world’s biggest utility-scale battery system, designed to back up its growing reliance on intermittent renewables. At 400 MWh this batch of batteries will be more than triple the 129 MWh world leader in Australia.
The City of New York’s director of sustainability (I am not making this title up), Mark Chambers, is ecstatic, bragging: “Expanding battery storage is a critical part of how we advance momentum to confront the climate emergency while meeting the energy needs of all New Yorkers. Today’s announcement demonstrates how we can deliver this need at significant scale.” (Emphasis added)
In reality the scale here is incredibly insignificant.
In the same nonsensical way, Tim Cawley, the president of Con Edison, New York’s power utility, gushes thus: “Utility scale battery storage will play a vital role in New York’s clean energy future, especially in New York City where it will help to maximize the benefit of the wind power being developed offshore.”
This puts the Con in Con Edison.
Here is the reality when it comes to the scale needed to reliably back up intermittent renewables. For simplicity let us suppose New York City is 100% wind powered. Including solar in the generating mix makes it more complicated but does not change the unhappy outcome very much.
NYC presently peaks at around 32,000 MW needed to keep the lights on. If Mr. Biden makes all the cars and trucks electric it might be closer to 50,000 MW but let’s stick to reality.
This peak occurs during summer heat waves which are caused by stagnant high pressure systems called Bermuda highs. These highs often last for a week and because they are stagnant there is no wind power generation. Wind turbines require something like sustained winds of 10 mph to move the blades and more like a whistling 30 mph to generate full power. During a Bermuda high folks are happy to get the occasional 5 mph breeze. These huge highs cover many states so it is not like we can get the juice from next door.
So for reliability we need, say, seven days of backup, which is 168 hours. Here’s the math:
32,000 MW x 168 hours = 5,376,000 MWh of stored juice needed to just make it. Mind you for normal reliability we usually add 20% or so. Did I mention electric cars?
It is easy to see that a trivial 400 MWh is not “significant scale.” It is infinitesimal scale. Nothing. Nada. Might as well not exist.
[I estimate 45 seconds of backup power from the facility. Someone correct me if I’m wrong~CR]
More specifically, 5,376,000 divided by 400 = 13,440 so only 13,439 more to go.
On the other hand, this measly 400 MWh battery array may well cost half a billion dollars, which is significant, especially to the New Yorkers who will pay for it. No cost figures are given because the system is privately owned, but EIA reports that the average utility scale battery system runs around $1.5 million a MWh of storage capacity. That works out to $600 million for this insignificant toy.
So what would it cost to reliably back up wind power, at this MWh cost and NYC’s scale? Just over $8,000,000,000,000 or EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS. I have not seen this stupendous sum mentioned in the media. Perhaps Con Ed has not mentioned it.
Then too, New York State has the same problem. Only much bigger if New York City is included, which it often is.
But hey, maybe the cost will come down a few trillion. Not if we create a seller’s market by rushing into intermittent renewables, which is certainly where we are headed. After all, this is just New York City. Imagine what backing up America with batteries might cost. Don’t bother because it is impossible.
I should also add that we have no idea how to make 5 million MWh of batteries work together. The tiny 400 will be a challenge. It may not be possible.
Maybe fracked geothermal, the reliable renewable, is the answer. Or how about coal, oil, gas and nuclear power? Too bad they are all out of fashion.
All of this battery backup hype is a scam, and not just in New York either. The papers are full of this con, from coast to coast. The utilities know perfectly well that these loudly touted battery buys are a hoax, but they are getting rich building the wind and solar systems the politicians are calling for.
The voters are oblivious to these impossible numbers, since they are told that intermittent wind and solar are cheaper than reliable coal, gas and nuclear. Only when the sun shines bright and the wind blows hard, which is not all that often.
Reality is just sitting there, waiting. It can’t work so it won’t work. At this point it is just a question of how and when we find out the hard way
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-26--Blizzard for Sioux Falls

Blizzard for Sioux Falls

The National Weather Service in Sioux Falls , South Dakota , advised people to “ stay home ” on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ blizzard conditions swept through the area .
“ It ’ s bad out there folks @ @ @ @ @ a Facebook post .
“ Stay home and delay or cancel travel if possible !
@ @ @ @ @ conditions outside the NWS office in Sioux Falls .
Thanks to Harvey M. Haeberle for @ @ @ @ @ for Sioux Falls appeared first on Ice Age Now .

The National Weather Service in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, advised people to “stay home” on Wednesday, December 23, as blizzard conditions swept through the area.
“It’s bad out there folks!” the said in a Facebook post. “Stay home and delay or cancel travel if possible!”
Video footage shows blizzard conditions outside the NWS office in Sioux Falls.
See Sioux Falls video:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=693995841491971
https://news.yahoo.com/blizzard-conditions-sweep-sioux-falls-083257395.html
Thanks to Harvey M. Haeberle for this link
The post Blizzard for Sioux Falls appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3rnP5lL
December 25, 2020 at 06:18PM


China recolonizes Africa

Western policies damage Africa and the planet , kill millions , and open doors to China Joe Biden has pledged that one of his first acts as President will be rejoining the Paris Climate Treaty – which gives China a complete pass on reducing emissions until at least 2030 .
Even Biden ’ s designated “ climate envoy , ” former Secretary of State John Kerry , says the existing treaty “ has to be stronger , ” but then claims China will somehow become an active partner , instead of the competitor and adversary it clearly is .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s as imperative for China as it is for us.
” As to China employing more Green technology and abiding by ( much less strengthening ) the Paris agreement , the evidence is at best spotty , at worst completely the opposite .
President Trump pulled the United States out of Paris , but between January 2017 and May 2019 the US had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants , with 51 more shutdowns announced , bringing the total shutdowns to 289 ( 330 once announced shutdowns also take place ) since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating .
Meanwhile , as of 2019 , China had 2,363 active coal-fired power plants and was building another 1,171 in the Middle Kingdom – plus hundreds more in Africa , Asia and elsewhere .
A CO2 Coalition white paper by Kathleen Hartnett White and Caleb Rossiter reveals that China now has modern pollutant-scrubbing technology on over 80 % of its coal-fired power plants , but no scrubbers at any Chinese-built coal-fired power plants in Africa ( or likely anywhere else ) – and none anywhere that remove carbon dioxide .
Harvard University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building , planning or financing more than 300 coal plants , in places as widespread as Turkey , Egypt , Vietnam , Indonesia , Bangladesh and the Philippines .
India , South Korea , Japan , South Africa and even Germany are also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants .
No matter how many the USA closes down , it won ’ t make any global difference .
Boston University data indicate that China has invested over $ 50 billion in building new coal plants overseas in recent years , and over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle Kingdom have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese financial institutions .
“ Why is China placing a global bet on coal ?
” NPR wonders .
That ’ s a 40 or even 50-year commitment , the life span of coal-fired units .
The NPR authors even quote the Stinson Center think tank ’ s Southeast Asia analyst , who says “ it ’ s not clear when you look at the actual projects China is funding that they are truly Green.
” They ’ re obviously not green , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their poor eyesight can perceive .
China knows it and the world will need oil , natural gas and coal for decades to come .
It sees “ green ” as the color of money and is happy to extend credit under terms very favorable to China .
Communist Party leaders seek global military and economic power – and global control of electricity generation , raw materials extraction , and manufacturing of wind turbines , solar panels and battery modules they will sell to address the West ’ s obsession with the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sustainable ” energy .
Party leaders also know its production of “ green ” technologies is a good smokescreen for all this coal power – and few Western governments will dare to criticize China sharply over this or Covid .
A recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report lambasts environmentalists ( like John Kerry ) as “ useful idiots ” who “ praise the scale of Chinese ambition on climate change , while paying lip service in criticizing China ’ s massive coal expansion.
” It notes that China rarely honors its international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel consumption .
But what are Africa and other developing nations to do ?
The West will not fund even clean coal projects that would eliminate pollution from dung and wood fires , while providing reliable , affordable electricity for lights , refrigerators , schools , shops , hospitals , factories and much more .
China will – and despite the heavy price , their demand for energy requires that they get electricity by any means necessary .
With 1.1 billion people , Sub-Saharan Africa remains the world ’ s poorest region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young , energetic population with an affinity for entrepreneurship .
Dutch economist Wim Naudé says Africa must industrialize , which means it must have affordable , reliable electricity , if it is to overcome poverty and disease , create jobs and discourage terrorism .
Unfortunately , outrageously , US , EU , UN and World Bank policies have stymied African energy resource development .
As White and Rossiter note , US policies since the Obama era oppose Africans using the continent ’ s abundant coal and gas to fuel power plants , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuels might exacerbate climate change .
African Energy Chamber executive chairman NJ Ayuk recently reported that the United Kingdom has also decided it will stop funding new oil , gas and coal projects as of November 4 , 2021 , the fifth anniversary of the Paris treaty .
The decision kowtows to Green opposition to UK Export Finance support for a Mozambique terminal to export low-CO2 emissions liquefied natural gas .
Ayuk had been touting natural gas as an increasing option for African power plants , boasting that Africa is home to four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crude oil producers ( Nigeria , Angola , Algeria and Libya ) ; Algeria and Nigeria are among the top 20 natural gas producers ; and Mozambique also has huge gas reserves .
“ It is troubling , ” Ayuk said , “ that an aggressive foreign-funded anti-African energy campaign continues to undermine the potential of making Mozambique an oasis for gas monetization and meeting our increasing energy demands.
” Despite this setback , he continued , “ we must continue to be unwavering in our commitment to stand up for Africa ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing energy poverty , and those free-market values that will make our continent attractive to committed energy investors.
” In much of Africa , electricity demand far outstrips supply .
“ In factories , businesses , government buildings and wealthy neighborhoods in every African country , ” White and Rossiter observe , a cacophonous symphony of soot-spewing backup diesel engines erupts when the grid goes down , which is usually every day.
” In fact , says the World Bank ’ s International Finance Corporation , many African countries spend more on dirty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid itself ; in West Africa , backup kilowatts equal 40 % of total grid kilowatts .
In Sudan , which gets 30 % of its energy from dams on the Nile River , diesel-based pumps run constantly to lift river water for irrigation , even at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles .
In Nigeria , hotels ban guests from jogging because of health dangers from breathing soot from their diesel backup generators , which kick in repeatedly as neighborhoods go dark .
In Southern Africa , construction sites simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets with noxious clouds .
Universities rely on diesels to run old , inefficient air conditioning units .
White and Rossiter note that American clean coal technology , exemplified by the Turk power plant in Arkansas , virtually eliminates health hazards from sulfur dioxide , nitrogen oxides and particulates .
They urge the U.S. to support proposals by African governments to import this technology , noting that electricity is “ the central nervous system of a modern economy and modern life expectancy .
Africa ’ s electricity deficit translates directly into its life-expectancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Millions die needlessly every year , from countless diseases of energy and economic poverty .
But under a Biden-Harris Administration , with John Kerry at the forefront , there is little hope that these African and other pleas will be heard .
With European allies in myopic puritanical lockstep , China will continue to get a total pass on complying with Green demands – and will have free rein to turn sub-Saharan Africa into a giant Chinese colony , despite the environmental damage , monstrous debt , slave and child labor under horrific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Africans .
It is eco-imperialism and eco-manslaughter at its worst .
Where are the vaunted guardians of climate and environmental justice ?
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org )

Western policies damage Africa and the planet, kill millions, and open doors to China
Duggan Flanakin
Joe Biden has pledged that one of his first acts as President will be rejoining the Paris Climate Treaty – which gives China a complete pass on reducing emissions until at least 2030. Even Biden’s designated “climate envoy,” former Secretary of State John Kerry, says the existing treaty “has to be stronger,” but then claims China will somehow become an active partner, instead of the competitor and adversary it clearly is. His rationale: “Climate is imperative, it’s as imperative for China as it is for us.”
As to China employing more Green technology and abiding by (much less strengthening) the Paris agreement, the evidence is at best spotty, at worst completely the opposite. President Trump pulled the United States out of Paris, but between January 2017 and May 2019 the US had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants, with 51 more shutdowns announced, bringing the total shutdowns to 289 (330 once announced shutdowns also take place) since 2010, soon leaving under 200 still operating.
Meanwhile, as of 2019, China had 2,363 active coal-fired power plants and was building another 1,171 in the Middle Kingdom – plus hundreds more in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. A CO2 Coalition white paper by Kathleen Hartnett White and Caleb Rossiter reveals that China now has modern pollutant-scrubbing technology on over 80% of its coal-fired power plants, but no scrubbers at any Chinese-built coal-fired power plants in Africa (or likely anywhere else) – and none anywhere that remove carbon dioxide.
Harvard University China specialist Edward Cunningham says China is building, planning or financing more than 300 coal plants, in places as widespread as Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines. India, South Korea, Japan, South Africa and even Germany are also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants. No matter how many the USA closes down, it won’t make any global difference.
Boston University data indicate that China has invested over $50 billion in building new coal plants overseas in recent years, and over a quarter of new coal plants outside the Middle Kingdom have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese financial institutions.
“Why is China placing a global bet on coal?” NPR wonders. That’s a 40 or even 50-year commitment, the life span of coal-fired units. The NPR authors even quote the Stinson Center think tank’s Southeast Asia analyst, who says “it’s not clear when you look at the actual projects China is funding that they are truly Green.” They’re obviously not green, and more is obviously going on than their poor eyesight can perceive.
China knows it and the world will need oil, natural gas and coal for decades to come. It sees “green” as the color of money and is happy to extend credit under terms very favorable to China. Communist Party leaders seek global military and economic power – and global control of electricity generation, raw materials extraction, and manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels and battery modules they will sell to address the West’s obsession with the “manmade climate crisis” and “renewable, sustainable” energy.
Party leaders also know its production of “green” technologies is a good smokescreen for all this coal power – and few Western governments will dare to criticize China sharply over this or Covid.
A recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report lambasts environmentalists (like John Kerry) as “useful idiots” who “praise the scale of Chinese ambition on climate change, while paying lip service in criticizing China’s massive coal expansion.” It notes that China rarely honors its international agreements and has no intention of reducing fossil fuel consumption.
But what are Africa and other developing nations to do? The West will not fund even clean coal projects that would eliminate pollution from dung and wood fires, while providing reliable, affordable electricity for lights, refrigerators, schools, shops, hospitals, factories and much more. China will – and despite the heavy price, their demand for energy requires that they get electricity by any means necessary.
With 1.1 billion people, Sub-Saharan Africa remains the world’s poorest region, despite massive mineral resources and a young, energetic population with an affinity for entrepreneurship. Dutch economist Wim Naudé says Africa must industrialize, which means it must have affordable, reliable electricity, if it is to overcome poverty and disease, create jobs and discourage terrorism.
Unfortunately, outrageously, US, EU, UN and World Bank policies have stymied African energy resource development. As White and Rossiter note, US policies since the Obama era oppose Africans using the continent’s abundant coal and gas to fuel power plants, on the ground that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels might exacerbate climate change.
African Energy Chamber executive chairman NJ Ayuk recently reported that the United Kingdom has also decided it will stop funding new oil, gas and coal projects as of November 4, 2021, the fifth anniversary of the Paris treaty. The decision kowtows to Green opposition to UK Export Finance support for a Mozambique terminal to export low-CO2 emissions liquefied natural gas.
Ayuk had been touting natural gas as an increasing option for African power plants, boasting that Africa is home to four of the world’s top 20 crude oil producers (Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and Libya); Algeria and Nigeria are among the top 20 natural gas producers; and Mozambique also has huge gas reserves.
“It is troubling,” Ayuk said, “that an aggressive foreign-funded anti-African energy campaign continues to undermine the potential of making Mozambique an oasis for gas monetization and meeting our increasing energy demands.” Despite this setback, he continued, “we must continue to be unwavering in our commitment to stand up for Africa’s energy sector, its workers, reducing energy poverty, and those free-market values that will make our continent attractive to committed energy investors.”
In much of Africa, electricity demand far outstrips supply. “In factories, businesses, government buildings and wealthy neighborhoods in every African country,” White and Rossiter observe, a cacophonous symphony of soot-spewing backup diesel engines erupts when the grid goes down, which is usually every day.” In fact, says the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, many African countries spend more on dirty backup power than on electricity for the grid itself; in West Africa, backup kilowatts equal 40% of total grid kilowatts.
In Sudan, which gets 30% of its energy from dams on the Nile River, diesel-based pumps run constantly to lift river water for irrigation, even at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles. In Nigeria, hotels ban guests from jogging because of health dangers from breathing soot from their diesel backup generators, which kick in repeatedly as neighborhoods go dark. In Southern Africa, construction sites simply run generators all day, filling nearby streets with noxious clouds. Universities rely on diesels to run old, inefficient air conditioning units.
White and Rossiter note that American clean coal technology, exemplified by the Turk power plant in Arkansas, virtually eliminates health hazards from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. They urge the U.S. to support proposals by African governments to import this technology, noting that electricity is “the central nervous system of a modern economy and modern life expectancy. Africa’s electricity deficit translates directly into its life-expectancy deficit of 15 years per person.”
Millions die needlessly every year, from countless diseases of energy and economic poverty.
But under a Biden-Harris Administration, with John Kerry at the forefront, there is little hope that these African and other pleas will be heard. With European allies in myopic puritanical lockstep, China will continue to get a total pass on complying with Green demands – and will have free rein to turn sub-Saharan Africa into a giant Chinese colony, despite the environmental damage, monstrous debt, slave and child labor under horrific workplace conditions, and likely modest benefits to Africans.
It is eco-imperialism and eco-manslaughter at its worst. Where are the vaunted guardians of climate and environmental justice?
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)
Like this: Like Loading…
Related