iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Massive & Endless Subsidies Destroy Claim That Wind & Solar Cheapest Of All

In the ‘ pigs might fly category ’ sits the claim that intermittent wind and solar are the cheapest power sources , amongst all contenders .
Were there even a shred of truth to that story , then renewable energy rent seekers wouldn ’ t be hounding policymakers at every turn to ensure that the massive subsidies they currently enjoy be guaranteed to outlast religion .
The merest mention of a reduction , suspension or ( heaven forbid ) removal of mandated targets , guaranteed over the market contract prices , tax credits or renewable energy certificates has this group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Running in lockstep of those who profit directly from the greatest economic and environmental fraud in history , are groups of starry-eyed boffins and bureaucrats who think that the only thing standing between us and an all wind and sun powered future are a few mythical mega-batteries and the ability to store and transport hydrogen gas .
Among them is Australia ’ s CSIRO – the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation .
It was once revered as an organisation dedicated to advancing Australian industry through meticulous research and applied science .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re talking about the type that drill it , mine it and make it ; rather than the ones that import Chinese solar panels and wind turbines in order to wallow in renewable energy certificates , at power consumers ’ considerable expense .
Now , as Terry McCrann details below , the CSIRO has become committed to the destruction of those very same industries – with an application of something between fawning religiosity and unhinged delusion .
CSIRO goes gaga with its GIGO analysis of renewable energy The Australian Terry McCrann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prestige science body the CSIRO has told us we can abandon all those mandatory targets for more and more so-called renewable energy and save taxpayers and consumers the $ 13bn or so — and rising — that we pay each year in direct and hidden subsidies for wind and solar .
That ’ s to say , we don ’ t need any forced targets for electricity generation ; the industry will “ go 100 per cent renewable ” all on its own out of sheer greed , because that ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the CSIRO .
Therefore we will only need carbon dioxide ( and methane ) targets for “ everything else ” outside electricity generation — from cement and steel and non-electricity generating gas to farting cows .
And sheep ?
I actually haven ’ t seen any numbers on the fart quotient for the average sheep .
Here ’ s the headline on the CSIRO press release on Friday : “ Renewables still the cheapest new-build power in Australia ” .
Here ’ s the breathless money quote from someone identified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Even taking into account these extra system integration costs , solar photovoltaics ( PV ) and wind continue to be the cheapest new sources of electricity for any expected share of renewables in the grid — anywhere from 50 per cent to 100 per cent.
” Those “ extra system integration costs ” he referred to are the amount of “ storage needed ” — batteries like former SA premier Jay Weatherill ’ s Tesla one and pumped hydro like former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull ’ s Snowy 2.0 — and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my , that ’ s impressive .
Previously wind and solar only seemed cheap when you didn ’ t factor in the cost of alternative power to switch in when , you know , “ the wind don ’ t blow and the sun don ’ t shine ” .
This analysis at least purports to factor those costs in ; and even with them added , wind and solar are still cheaper than all the other forms of electricity generation and especially ( wicked ) black and brown coal .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single dollar of direct or indirect subsidy or government mandation , we ’ d just naturally go all wind and solar ?
That you ’ d never get another coal-fired power station built , just like you ’ d never get flat-screen TVs made in Australia ?
Because , just as the profit motive drives us to import all our flat-screen TVs from China , so we would only build wind and solar plants — and , of course , import all the solar panels and wind turbines from China as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting wind and solar , this analysis is — not to put too fine a point on it — utter garbage .
Or , to express that in more polite academic terminology : GIGO , or Garbage In Garbage Out .
What the breathless press release did not say was that the so-called “ proved cheapness ” of wind and solar came with an asterisk — a very large asterisk .
That the “ costs ” of coal and gas-fired generation included a massive and massively increasing carbon tax imposed on them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be exactly like claiming detailed analysis has proved that it is cheaper to make those flat-screen TVs in Australia than to import them from China .
While leaving it for you to read in the fine print ( and in the CSIRO report it is literally in fine print ) that this analysis builds in a 200 per cent tariff into the “ cost ” of Chinese flat-screen TVs .
The CSIRO press release does provide a very indirect clue to the analytical — what ’ s the best word ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
All of them and more ?
— definition of “ generation cost ” .
It refers to “ costs reductions for technologies not currently being widely deployed , such as carbon capture and storage ( CCS ) ” .
Hang on ?
What ’ s CCS got to do with an analysis of power generation cost ?
CCS doesn ’ t generate power ?
It ’ s not needed for power generation ; only for preventing CO2 emissions ?
The only reason you would spend money installing CCS is to avoid mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ analysis ” is all built on taking your choice .
You can build a new coal-fired generator and double its cost — and the “ cost ” of its power generated — by adding CCS .
Or you can pay a carbon tax ( which the report , mindful of the misfortune of a former certain PM , calls a carbon price ) that starts at $ 75/ $ 100 an emitted tonne in 2025 and rises to $ 275/ $ 390 a tonne by 2050 .
And so the “ cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased .
The two figures for the carbon tax/price depend on whether Australia has a higher or lower “ climate policy ambition ” .
So there ’ s the basic analytical dishonesty ( there always is , I would add , almost gratuitously ) : to wit , we prove wind and solar are cheaper than coal because we make coal artificially more expensive .
But in its own terms , even more impressive is the breathtakingly , almost bottomless , analytical stupidity .
There ’ s not the faintest understanding that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starts with the basic requirement of reducing CO2 emissions from power generation to zero .
It then calculates the carbon tax/price required to make coal ( and gas ) generation more expensive than wind and solar so that “ the market ” will build and use wind and solar to achieve those CO2 cuts .
And then , miracle of miracles , it finds — it proves — that wind and solar are cheaper than coal and gas !
Those who built the CSIRO to our great national advantage and benefit through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graves .
The CSIRO of 2020 has got precious little to do with science , is anti-industry and produces research of this , ahem , quality .
It needs a name and acronym honesty update to CF-SA-IC-RD .
While on energy dishonesty , a shout-out to the greenies who recently trumpeted Tasmania “ proving ” you can go 100 per cent renewables — implying you can get there with wind and solar .
Oh yeah ?
Tasmania still gets 90 per cent of its power from hydro .
Are the greenies now really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Australian

In the ‘pigs might fly category’ sits the claim that intermittent wind and solar are the cheapest power sources, amongst all contenders. Were there even a shred of truth to that story, then renewable energy rent seekers wouldn’t be hounding policymakers at every turn to ensure that the massive subsidies they currently enjoy be guaranteed to outlast religion. The merest mention of a reduction, suspension or (heaven forbid) removal of mandated targets, guaranteed over the market contract prices, tax credits or renewable energy certificates has this group of well-practised leeches screaming blue murder.
Running in lockstep of those who profit directly from the greatest economic and environmental fraud in history, are groups of starry-eyed boffins and bureaucrats who think that the only thing standing between us and an all wind and sun powered future are a few mythical mega-batteries and the ability to store and transport hydrogen gas.
Among them is Australia’s CSIRO – the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
It was once revered as an organisation dedicated to advancing Australian industry through meticulous research and applied science. And when we talk about ‘industry, we’re talking about the type that drill it, mine it and make it; rather than the ones that import Chinese solar panels and wind turbines in order to wallow in renewable energy certificates, at power consumers’ considerable expense.
Now, as Terry McCrann details below, the CSIRO has become committed to the destruction of those very same industries – with an application of something between fawning religiosity and unhinged delusion.
CSIRO goes gaga with its GIGO analysis of renewable energy
The Australian
Terry McCrann
11 December 2020
Great news: our prestige science body the CSIRO has told us we can abandon all those mandatory targets for more and more so-called renewable energy and save taxpayers and consumers the $13bn or so — and rising — that we pay each year in direct and hidden subsidies for wind and solar.
That’s to say, we don’t need any forced targets for electricity generation; the industry will “go 100 per cent renewable” all on its own out of sheer greed, because that’s where the biggest profits are. Supposedly, according to the CSIRO.
Therefore we will only need carbon dioxide (and methane) targets for “everything else” outside electricity generation — from cement and steel and non-electricity generating gas to farting cows. And sheep? I actually haven’t seen any numbers on the fart quotient for the average sheep.
Here’s the headline on the CSIRO press release on Friday: “Renewables still the cheapest new-build power in Australia”.
Here’s the breathless money quote from someone identified as CSIRO chief energy economist Paul Graham: “Even taking into account these extra system integration costs, solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind continue to be the cheapest new sources of electricity for any expected share of renewables in the grid — anywhere from 50 per cent to 100 per cent.”
Those “extra system integration costs” he referred to are the amount of “storage needed” — batteries like former SA premier Jay Weatherill’s Tesla one and pumped hydro like former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Snowy 2.0 — and “additional transmission expenditure”.
My, my, that’s impressive. Previously wind and solar only seemed cheap when you didn’t factor in the cost of alternative power to switch in when, you know, “the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine”.
This analysis at least purports to factor those costs in; and even with them added, wind and solar are still cheaper than all the other forms of electricity generation and especially (wicked) black and brown coal. So, case proven?
So that, without a single dollar of direct or indirect subsidy or government mandation, we’d just naturally go all wind and solar? That you’d never get another coal-fired power station built, just like you’d never get flat-screen TVs made in Australia?
Because, just as the profit motive drives us to import all our flat-screen TVs from China, so we would only build wind and solar plants — and, of course, import all the solar panels and wind turbines from China as well?
Actually, no. Like everything promoting wind and solar, this analysis is — not to put too fine a point on it — utter garbage. Or, to express that in more polite academic terminology: GIGO, or Garbage In Garbage Out.
What the breathless press release did not say was that the so-called “proved cheapness” of wind and solar came with an asterisk — a very large asterisk. That the “costs” of coal and gas-fired generation included a massive and massively increasing carbon tax imposed on them.
To draw a rather timely analogy; that would be exactly like claiming detailed analysis has proved that it is cheaper to make those flat-screen TVs in Australia than to import them from China.
While leaving it for you to read in the fine print (and in the CSIRO report it is literally in fine print) that this analysis builds in a 200 per cent tariff into the “cost” of Chinese flat-screen TVs.
The CSIRO press release does provide a very indirect clue to the analytical — what’s the best word? Dodgy? Dishonest? Disgraceful? Pathetic? All of them and more? — definition of “generation cost”.
It refers to “costs reductions for technologies not currently being widely deployed, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS)”.
Hang on? What’s CCS got to do with an analysis of power generation cost? CCS doesn’t generate power? It’s not needed for power generation; only for preventing CO2 emissions? The only reason you would spend money installing CCS is to avoid mandatory payments for CO2 emissions.
So the “analysis” is all built on taking your choice. You can build a new coal-fired generator and double its cost — and the “cost” of its power generated — by adding CCS. Or you can pay a carbon tax (which the report, mindful of the misfortune of a former certain PM, calls a carbon price) that starts at $75/$100 an emitted tonne in 2025 and rises to $275/$390 a tonne by 2050. And so the “cost” of power generated is similarly dramatically increased.
The two figures for the carbon tax/price depend on whether Australia has a higher or lower “climate policy ambition”.
So there’s the basic analytical dishonesty (there always is, I would add, almost gratuitously): to wit, we prove wind and solar are cheaper than coal because we make coal artificially more expensive.
But in its own terms, even more impressive is the breathtakingly, almost bottomless, analytical stupidity. There’s not the faintest understanding that the whole analysis is entirely circular.
CSIRO starts with the basic requirement of reducing CO2 emissions from power generation to zero. It then calculates the carbon tax/price required to make coal (and gas) generation more expensive than wind and solar so that “the market” will build and use wind and solar to achieve those CO2 cuts. And then, miracle of miracles, it finds — it proves — that wind and solar are cheaper than coal and gas!
Those who built the CSIRO to our great national advantage and benefit through the 20th century would be turning in their graves.
The CSIRO of 2020 has got precious little to do with science, is anti-industry and produces research of this, ahem, quality.
It needs a name and acronym honesty update to CF-SA-IC-RD.
While on energy dishonesty, a shout-out to the greenies who recently trumpeted Tasmania “proving” you can go 100 per cent renewables — implying you can get there with wind and solar. Oh yeah? Tasmania still gets 90 per cent of its power from hydro. Are the greenies now really pro-dam, starting with the Franklin?
The Australian


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Where is the Outrage Over Climate and Energy Policy?

The headlines tell the story , and it ’ s not a pretty one .
Climate realists , like me , are losing the climate change debate .
Not because we are wrong .
Factually , we win every time !
But , we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions .
The climate alarmists don ’ t care about the facts .
They beat us down with children , like Greta Thunberg , and lecture us about self-interest and our cowardice in the face of a “ mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural emotions and worst fears by linking climate change to those uncontrollable things we are most afraid to face—hurricanes ( lions ) , wildfires ( tigers ) , and tornadoes ( and bears , oh my ! )
.
• Climate change models have failed to accurately predict the future global average temperature change .
• There is no ideal average temperature for a world where on any given day the temperature could be -50 degrees F in one place and 120 F above zero somewhere else .
( Remember , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortable standing with one foot on a block of ice and the other in a fire . )
• Global average temperatures have fluctuated much more and have changed much faster in the geologic past and well before humans started burning carbon-based fuels in significant quantities .
• Weather patterns are much more attributable to cyclical changes in ocean currents than to climate change .
• The use of oil , gas , and coal creates a significantly higher quality of life for billions of people , reduces poverty , provides abundant food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water .
• There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is neither caused primarily by humans nor an existential threat to mankind or any other species .
Despite all this and more , we are gradually losing the battle for the minds of the people when it comes to the climate change debate .
And we are not just losing the debate at the political level .
We are losing in the board rooms , and not just the woke corporations like Amazon , Nike , Apple , or Google , but in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , the oil & gas industry , and the manufacturers .
We tend to make our case using wonky science that even scientists don ’ t fully understand .
People can ’ t get their heads around our rational explanations , but they darn sure understand fear of events that may affect them directly and personally .
We tend to argue about the adverse macro-economic effects of climate change policy—the loss of millions of jobs , green energy costing trillions of dollars , and the failed goals of wealth redistribution .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have you ever wondered why the voters do not support Social Security or Medicare reforms , despite the overwhelming macro-economic evidence that both systems will likely be bankrupt within the next decade ?
The answer is fairly simple .
People make decisions based on micro-economics , not macro-economics .
People will choose to protect their personal benefits over the solvency of the system—every time .
Consider these examples of the micro-economic impacts of climate-change policies .
Here in Virginia , Dominion Energy is closing coal-fired power plants in favor of solar and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable energy sources will lead to a $ 1,000 per person per year increase in electric bills by 2030 .
Ask anybody if they are willing to pay a thousand dollars a year when it is not likely to change the average global temperature at all ?
This question brings the issue home , and the answer will much more often be a resounding “ No !
” Ask the same person if they think climate change is a threat and whether we should do something about it , and you will get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Climate Initiative , a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states plus DC , is proposing a 20-25 % reduction of carbon dioxide emissions for the region .
Their policy of choice is a “ carbon [ dioxide ] tax.
” Recently , Virginia enacted a carbon dioxide tax on utility generation , and the General Assembly will be considering one on transportation fuels that may include a 28 cent per gallon gasoline tax and a 26 cent per gallon diesel tax .
Based on current mileage rates and miles driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost each driver more than $ 1,000 per year !
Once again , I can fairly easily predict the response from most people to the question of whether they are willing to pay another $ 1,000 per year for no material effect on the climate .
People expect their lights and their computer to work when they flip the power switch .
Talk about the potential for rolling brown-outs , or planned black-outs , so that someone else can charge their electric vehicle at the charging station built with tax dollars ( ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I think you will get a predictable negative response .
I am certain that we can come up with many more examples , but my point is this : let ’ s take the case against climate change down to the personal , micro-economic level .
Remember the charge against George H. W. Bush : “ It ’ s the economy stupid !
” It wasn ’ t that Bush didn ’ t understand that there was a recession ; it was that he failed to recognize how that recession affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it another way , everything in life is political , except politics , that ’ s personal .
When you explain how a policy threatens someone ’ s pocket book , you ’ ll get their attention .
Paul D. Hoffman has been involved in environmental policy making and communications throughout his career .
He has served as State Director for then-Congressman Dick Cheney , Executive Director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce just outside Yellowstone National Park , and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently the publicist for Hope Springs Media and a consultant for Resource Management Strategies .
He has a Bachelor ’ s degree in Economics and Biology from the University of California at San Diego , Revelle College .
He wrote this article for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation .

by Paul D. Hoffman
The headlines tell the story, and it’s not a pretty one. Climate realists, like me, are losing the climate change debate. Not because we are wrong. Factually, we win every time! But, we are losing the hearts and minds of the people because we have failed to tap into their emotions.
The climate alarmists don’t care about the facts. They beat us down with children, like Greta Thunberg, and lecture us about self-interest and our cowardice in the face of a “mass extinction event.” They play to our natural emotions and worst fears by linking climate change to those uncontrollable things we are most afraid to face—hurricanes (lions), wildfires (tigers), and tornadoes (and bears, oh my!).
Despite these facts:
Climate change models have failed to accurately predict the future global average temperature change.
There is no ideal average temperature for a world where on any given day the temperature could be -50 degrees F in one place and 120 F above zero somewhere else. (Remember, if you live by averages, you would be comfortable standing with one foot on a block of ice and the other in a fire.)
Global average temperatures have fluctuated much more and have changed much faster in the geologic past and well before humans started burning carbon-based fuels in significant quantities.
Weather patterns are much more attributable to cyclical changes in ocean currents than to climate change.
The use of oil, gas, and coal creates a significantly higher quality of life for billions of people, reduces poverty, provides abundant food supplies, and means cleaner air and water.
There is overwhelming evidence that climate change is neither caused primarily by humans nor an existential threat to mankind or any other species.
Despite all this and more, we are gradually losing the battle for the minds of the people when it comes to the climate change debate. And we are not just losing the debate at the political level. We are losing in the board rooms, and not just the woke corporations like Amazon, Nike, Apple, or Google, but in the corporate board rooms of the utility companies, the oil & gas industry, and the manufacturers.
Why?
We tend to make our case using wonky science that even scientists don’t fully understand. People can’t get their heads around our rational explanations, but they darn sure understand fear of events that may affect them directly and personally.
We tend to argue about the adverse macro-economic effects of climate change policy—the loss of millions of jobs, green energy costing trillions of dollars, and the failed goals of wealth redistribution. These effects are real and catastrophic.
However, have you ever wondered why the voters do not support Social Security or Medicare reforms, despite the overwhelming macro-economic evidence that both systems will likely be bankrupt within the next decade? The answer is fairly simple. People make decisions based on micro-economics, not macro-economics. People will choose to protect their personal benefits over the solvency of the system—every time.
Consider these examples of the micro-economic impacts of climate-change policies. Here in Virginia, Dominion Energy is closing coal-fired power plants in favor of solar and wind farms, and this move toward renewable energy sources will lead to a $1,000 per person per year increase in electric bills by 2030.
Ask anybody if they are willing to pay a thousand dollars a year when it is not likely to change the average global temperature at all? This question brings the issue home, and the answer will much more often be a resounding “No!” Ask the same person if they think climate change is a threat and whether we should do something about it, and you will get many more affirmative responses.
The Transportation & Climate Initiative, a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states plus DC, is proposing a 20-25% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions for the region. Their policy of choice is a “carbon [dioxide] tax.” Recently, Virginia enacted a carbon dioxide tax on utility generation, and the General Assembly will be considering one on transportation fuels that may include a 28 cent per gallon gasoline tax and a 26 cent per gallon diesel tax. Based on current mileage rates and miles driven per capita, these tax increases could cost each driver more than $1,000 per year! Once again, I can fairly easily predict the response from most people to the question of whether they are willing to pay another $1,000 per year for no material effect on the climate.
People expect their lights and their computer to work when they flip the power switch. Talk about the potential for rolling brown-outs, or planned black-outs, so that someone else can charge their electric vehicle at the charging station built with tax dollars (ever seen a government-built gas station?), and I think you will get a predictable negative response.
I am certain that we can come up with many more examples, but my point is this: let’s take the case against climate change down to the personal, micro-economic level. Remember the charge against George H. W. Bush: “It’s the economy stupid!” It wasn’t that Bush didn’t understand that there was a recession; it was that he failed to recognize how that recession affected people at the personal level.
To put it another way, everything in life is political, except politics, that’s personal. When you explain how a policy threatens someone’s pocket book, you’ll get their attention.
Paul D. Hoffman has been involved in environmental policy making and communications throughout his career. He has served as State Director for then-Congressman Dick Cheney, Executive Director of the Cody Country Chamber of Commerce just outside Yellowstone National Park, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the US Department of the Interior. He is currently the publicist for Hope Springs Media and a consultant for Resource Management Strategies. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics and Biology from the University of California at San Diego, Revelle College. He wrote this article for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Don’t wait for Twitter to let you organise mass protests

Priority One : Open new lines of communication We ’ re in an Information War but good citizens are waiting for the Tech Giants to let them get organized .
The first comment by John R Smith today , is so apt .
He lived near the Virginia Protest but didn ’ t know it was happening .
He and so many others .
USA citizens need to get around the media-tech iron curtain .
Thanks for this .
Feeling pretty low .
I ’ m not that far away and have heard nothing .
Makes me feel good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Va is impressive .
I was taught the fight starts when there is no choice .
Death , loss , pain , opinion , love , hate , become irrelevant .
We know if this was Greta Thunberg , CNN would tell the world it was a phenomenon .
How inspiring would it be for US Citizens to be part of that energy chanting U.S.A. U.S.A.. For them to know that nearly everyone around them felt the same way about corruption ?
This is the social dynamite the corrupt fear .
This kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The left control most of the institutions , but if President Trump [ … ]

Priority One: Open new lines of communication
We’re in an Information War but good citizens are waiting for the Tech Giants to let them get organized.
The first comment by John R Smith today, is so apt. He lived near the Virginia Protest but didn’t know it was happening. He and so many others. USA citizens need to get around the media-tech iron curtain.
John R Smith
Thanks for this. Feeling pretty low. I’m not that far away and have heard nothing. Makes me feel good. Getting that kind of turnout in No Va is impressive. I was taught the fight starts when there is no choice. Death, loss, pain, opinion, love, hate, become irrelevant.
We know if this was Greta Thunberg, CNN would tell the world it was a phenomenon.
How inspiring would it be for US Citizens to be part of that energy chanting U.S.A. U.S.A.. For them to know that nearly everyone around them felt the same way about corruption? This is the social dynamite the corrupt fear. This kind of passion is infectious and unstoppable.
Yesterday at the Army Navy Game:
The left control most of the institutions, but if President Trump […]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3nf1iqo
December 12, 2020 at 11:47PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Did Climate Change Cause World Heritage Listed Fraser Island to Burn?

In mid October , an illegal campfire on World Heritage Site Fraser Island caused a blaze which is still smouldering .
Fraser Island is only 8 miles across – so questions are being asked , about why a tiny island connected to the mainland by two vehicle barge services , with a major airport capable of handling 747s nearby in Hervey Bay , within a few hours drive of the state capital Brisbane , was allowed to burn .
Fighting for Fraser Island : how tourism and climate change put an ancient environment at risk Campaigners who helped end logging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lakes , rainforests and beaches now fear global heating Before he died in February 2019 , John Sinclair had been fighting for Fraser Island off the Queensland coast for the best part of 50 years .
In the early 1970s the world ’ s biggest sand island – an ethereal paradise of lakes , towering rainforests and ancient dunes – was under pressure from sand mining and more than a century of logging .
By 1976 , Sinclair and his purpose-built Fraser Island Defenders Organisation ( Fido ) had fought off the sand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the logging to stop .
Two months ago , an illegal campfire on the island got out of control .
With drier than usual conditions and high temperatures , the blaze has so far scorched 85,000 hectares – more than half the island .
What would John Sinclair have made of the devastation ?
“ He ’ d probably have said : I told you this would happen , ” his son Keith tells the Guardian .
“ He ’ d say : What are we going to do to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” However some people are not quite so ready to blame the failure to control the blaze on our climate sins .
An emergency bushfire warning was issued for the fire on Sunday with residents in the island town of Happy Valley advised to “ leave immediately ” .
Water bombing did not commence until November 14 — about one month after the fire started .
LNP spokesman for fire and emergency services Dale Last said the State Government needed to answer serious questions over the fire ’ s management .
“ These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s more shocking is the silence from Fire Minister Mark Ryan , ” he said .
“ He needs to front up .
He needs to explain what the Government knew about fire warnings and why they were ignored .
“ Queenslanders deserve to know what the Government could have done to prevent the spread of this fire .
“ This is a World Heritage-listed site that has been treated appallingly from a weak minister who is failing to take any responsibility for this unfolding disaster.
” Steve Knight , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Happy Valley , told ABC Radio Brisbane some residents were frustrated that more resources were not put towards fighting the fire earlier .
“ I don ’ t think anyone thought this one would get to where it is now and in fact I ’ m really annoyed that they didn ’ t pile the resources they ’ re applying to it now to it much earlier , ” he said .
“ They could have stopped this in its tracks a long time ago in my view but I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not my department.
” Fraser Island is a narrow strip of land surrounded by sea .
A single bulldozer could have cut a large fire break across the entire island in a few days .
A marine fire fighting barge could have flooded the fire with millions of litres per day of sea water , with a maximum hose length of 4 miles ( half the 8 mile width of the island ) , well within the capabilities of modern mine pumping or fire fighting equipment .
But all of these decisions would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to any firefighting measure which might damage or contaminate the word heritage listed forest .
So instead they sat on their hands until the fire was totally out of control , and let the island burn to a crisp .
Now they are trying to blame climate change for the catastrophic consequences of their failure to respond in a timely and appropriate manner .
Note I am not disparaging the efforts of the firefighters on the ground .
Within their apparently appalling rules of engagement they worked their butts of to save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one was hospitalised for heat exhaustion .

Fraser Island. Public Domain, link. Two vehicle ferry services operate from Rainbow Beach and a second location just south of Hervey Bay
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In mid October, an illegal campfire on World Heritage Site Fraser Island caused a blaze which is still smouldering. Fraser Island is only 8 miles across – so questions are being asked, about why a tiny island connected to the mainland by two vehicle barge services, with a major airport capable of handling 747s nearby in Hervey Bay, within a few hours drive of the state capital Brisbane, was allowed to burn.
Fighting for Fraser Island: how tourism and climate change put an ancient environment at risk Campaigners who helped end logging and mining in the spectacular paradise of lakes, rainforests and beaches now fear global heating Before he died in February 2019, John Sinclair had been fighting for Fraser Island off the Queensland coast for the best part of 50 years. In the early 1970s the world’s biggest sand island – an ethereal paradise of lakes, towering rainforests and ancient dunes – was under pressure from sand mining and more than a century of logging. By 1976, Sinclair and his purpose-built Fraser Island Defenders Organisation (Fido) had fought off the sand miners. It took another 15 years for the logging to stop. Two months ago, an illegal campfire on the island got out of control. With drier than usual conditions and high temperatures, the blaze has so far scorched 85,000 hectares – more than half the island. What would John Sinclair have made of the devastation? “He’d probably have said: I told you this would happen,” his son Keith tells the Guardian. “He’d say: What are we going to do to make sure it won’t happen again?” … Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/11/fighting-for-fraser-island-how-tourism-and-climate-change-put-an-ancient-environment-at-risk
However some people are not quite so ready to blame the failure to control the blaze on our climate sins.
Queensland Premier defends Fraser Island bushfire management as blaze continues to threaten Happy Valley By Rachel Riga and staff … An emergency bushfire warning was issued for the fire on Sunday with residents in the island town of Happy Valley advised to “leave immediately”. Water bombing did not commence until November 14 — about one month after the fire started. LNP spokesman for fire and emergency services Dale Last said the State Government needed to answer serious questions over the fire’s management. “These fires have caused shocking damage, but what’s more shocking is the silence from Fire Minister Mark Ryan,” he said. “He needs to front up. He needs to explain what the Government knew about fire warnings and why they were ignored. “Queenslanders deserve to know what the Government could have done to prevent the spread of this fire. “This is a World Heritage-listed site that has been treated appallingly from a weak minister who is failing to take any responsibility for this unfolding disaster.” … Steve Knight, the owner of a retreat in beachside town of Happy Valley, told ABC Radio Brisbane some residents were frustrated that more resources were not put towards fighting the fire earlier. “I don’t think anyone thought this one would get to where it is now and in fact I’m really annoyed that they didn’t pile the resources they’re applying to it now to it much earlier,” he said. “They could have stopped this in its tracks a long time ago in my view but I’m not a fireman and it’s not my department.” … Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-07/qld-fraser-island-bushfire-management/12957056
Fraser Island is a narrow strip of land surrounded by sea.
A single bulldozer could have cut a large fire break across the entire island in a few days. A marine fire fighting barge could have flooded the fire with millions of litres per day of sea water, with a maximum hose length of 4 miles (half the 8 mile width of the island), well within the capabilities of modern mine pumping or fire fighting equipment.
But all of these decisions would have required facing down green radicals opposed to any firefighting measure which might damage or contaminate the word heritage listed forest.
So instead they sat on their hands until the fire was totally out of control, and let the island burn to a crisp.
Now they are trying to blame climate change for the catastrophic consequences of their failure to respond in a timely and appropriate manner.
Note I am not disparaging the efforts of the firefighters on the ground. Within their apparently appalling rules of engagement they worked their butts of to save lives and homes, I heard at least one was hospitalised for heat exhaustion.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--If you Thought Climate Grief was Strange, Meet the Climate Grief Therapists

If someone is no longer able to function due to their “ pre-traumatic ” climate grief , a plethora of therapists are offering therapies ranging from “ The Great Turning , ” a societal transformation from an industrial , growth , and consumer-based society to a more equitable and sustainable one , to collapse-transcendence ( fostering psycho-social-spiritual-cultural shifts to accept and live through collapse with some composure and stability ) .
From disasters and social disruptions to existential concerns , climate distress groups may not only provide much-needed support to patients but may also help psychiatry ’ s public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and complex challenges to the mental health and wellness of individuals and communities .
The need for interventions at a global scale increasingly leads mental health providers to look toward large group interventions .
This article outlines a number of the more popular group approaches .
It informs psychiatrists about the climate distress groups that our patients may access and advances our understanding of these groups ’ methods , which may help psychiatry ’ s own public health response .
The Work That Reconnects ( TWTR ) is an approach developed by Joanna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ transformative learning process.
” 9 TWTR incorporates aspects of deep ecology , systems theory , eco-psychology , Buddhism , and activism .
… Instead of turning away from the problem , group members reframe and honor their feelings , and then develop fresh perspectives intended to bring about “ The Great Turning , ” a societal transformation from an industrial , growth , and consumer-based society to a more equitable and sustainable one .
The Deep Adaptation Forum was developed by Jem Bendell , PhD , after the publication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy , ” 12 which went viral .
Deep Adaptation ( DA ) positions itself outside of mainstream work on climate adaptation in that it assumes inevitable societal breakdown and collapse due to climate change and intentionally challenges the idea that hope should be part of climate change adaptation .
DA seeks to develop so-called collapse-readiness ( ie , creating an equitable system for distribution of life essentials such as food , water , energy , and health care ) and collapse-transcendence ( fostering psycho-social-spiritual-cultural shifts to accept and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stability ) .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
If someone is no longer able to function due to their “pre-traumatic” climate grief, a plethora of therapists are offering therapies ranging from “The Great Turning,” a societal transformation from an industrial, growth, and consumer-based society to a more equitable and sustainable one, to collapse-transcendence (fostering psycho-social-spiritual-cultural shifts to accept and live through collapse with some composure and stability).
Group Interventions for Climate Change Distress
December 11, 2020
Beth Mark, MD , Janet Lewis, MD
From disasters and social disruptions to existential concerns, climate distress groups may not only provide much-needed support to patients but may also help psychiatry’s public health responses.
The climate crisis presents unique and complex challenges to the mental health and wellness of individuals and communities. The need for interventions at a global scale increasingly leads mental health providers to look toward large group interventions. This article outlines a number of the more popular group approaches. It informs psychiatrists about the climate distress groups that our patients may access and advances our understanding of these groups’ methods, which may help psychiatry’s own public health response.
…
The Work That Reconnects (TWTR) is an approach developed by Joanna Macy, PhD, and is described as a “transformative learning process.”9 TWTR incorporates aspects of deep ecology, systems theory, eco-psychology, Buddhism, and activism. … Instead of turning away from the problem, group members reframe and honor their feelings, and then develop fresh perspectives intended to bring about “The Great Turning,” a societal transformation from an industrial, growth, and consumer-based society to a more equitable and sustainable one.
…
The Deep Adaptation Forum was developed by Jem Bendell, PhD, after the publication of his paper “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy,”12 which went viral. Deep Adaptation (DA) positions itself outside of mainstream work on climate adaptation in that it assumes inevitable societal breakdown and collapse due to climate change and intentionally challenges the idea that hope should be part of climate change adaptation.
…
DA seeks to develop so-called collapse-readiness (ie, creating an equitable system for distribution of life essentials such as food, water, energy, and health care) and collapse-transcendence(fostering psycho-social-spiritual-cultural shifts to accept and live through collapse with some composure and stability).
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system

“ I am sorry to say it but the USA in the eyes of the world is already a dictatorship , a banana republic.
” – Jarella _____________ The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system I am sorry to say it but the USA in the eyes of the world is already a dictatorship , a banana republic .
The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system .
When a country admits voting by mail , it loses its democracy .
When a country admits that a machine counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .
That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men , deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends , it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on such principles and organizing its powers in such form , as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness .
Prudence , indeed , will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and accordingly all experience hath shewn , that mankind are more disposed to suffer , while evils are sufferable , than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed .
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations , pursuing invariably the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under absolute Despotism , it is their right , it is their duty , to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security.
” The post The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system appeared first on Ice Age Now .

“I am sorry to say it but the USA in the eyes of the world is already a dictatorship, a banana republic.”
– Jarella
_____________
The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system
Jarella
I am sorry to say it but the USA in the eyes of the world is already a dictatorship, a banana republic.
The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system.
When a country admits voting by mail, it loses its democracy.
When a country admits that a machine counts the vote, it loses its democracy.
You have forgotten
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The post The USA can no longer boast to the world of a democratic system appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3nhZkW6
December 13, 2020 at 04:39PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Eurasia’s tallest active volcano erupts – Video

In this footage , Klyuchevskoy volcano on Russia ’ s remote Kamchatka Peninsula can be seen spouting lava and a @ @ @ @ @ the night sky , continuing a period of heightened activity over recent years .
First @ @ @ @ @ Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Group ( KVERT ) , Tuesday night ’ s eruption sent @ @ @ @ @ volcano ’ s southern slope , creeping for nearly a mile ( 1.5km ) before @ @ @ @ @ which ejected a plume of ash over 4 miles ( 7km ) high , was @ @ @ @ @ by RT ’ s sister agency , Ruptly .
The Klyuchevskoy volcano is the most @ @ @ @ @ the tallest of its type in all of Eurasia .
Thanks to Laurel for this @ @ @ @ @ s tallest active volcano erupts – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now .

In this footage, Klyuchevskoy volcano on Russia’s remote Kamchatka Peninsula can be seen spouting lava and a thick column of ash into the night sky, continuing a period of heightened activity over recent years.
.
.
First reported by Russia’s Kamchatka Volcanic Eruption Response Group (KVERT), Tuesday night’s eruption sent molten rock pouring down the volcano’s southern slope, creeping for nearly a mile (1.5km) before solidifying. The discharge, which ejected a plume of ash over 4 miles (7km) high, was captured in a video obtained by RT’s sister agency, Ruptly.
The Klyuchevskoy volcano is the most active in the country and the tallest of its type in all of Eurasia.
Thanks to Laurel for this video
The post Eurasia’s tallest active volcano erupts – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/37bDU7A
December 13, 2020 at 04:39PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Foreign Interference in spades: is there anywhere China doesn’t have CCP Party members?

Is two million communists enough ?
Today The Australian announced that a huge file has been leaked from inside China that has 2 million Communist Party members names and details on it .
These are not necessarily spies , but they might be .
People do sign up to it just to improve their prospects in China , but all CCP members also must pledge an oath that puts the party ’ s interests above all and “ be ready at all times to sacrifice my all for the party ” .
That ’ s a pledge with a conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or country their second priority .
Why do we allow it ?
See Sky News also .
Companies with CCP influence include bankers like ANZ , Citibank and HSBC , plus Boeing , Pfizer and AstraZeneca .
The Covid vaccines will be made by companies with CCP members on staff , somewhere .
Companies may be doing more information sharing with Beijing than what they expected .
Speaking of foreign interference it looks like Executive Order 13848 may be underway Maria Bartiromo interviewed General Michael Flynn , who mentions that John Ratcliffe – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – will report Friday .
If the 2018 Executive Order — that [ … ]

Is two million communists enough?
Today The Australian announced that a huge file has been leaked from inside China that has 2 million Communist Party members names and details on it. These are not necessarily spies, but they might be. People do sign up to it just to improve their prospects in China, but all CCP members also must pledge an oath that puts the party’s interests above all and “be ready at all times to sacrifice my all for the party”. That’s a pledge with a conflict of interest that makes their own company or country their second priority. Why do we allow it? See Sky News also.
Companies with CCP influence include bankers like ANZ, Citibank and HSBC, plus Boeing, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. The Covid vaccines will be made by companies with CCP members on staff, somewhere. Companies may be doing more information sharing with Beijing than what they expected.
Speaking of foreign interference it looks like Executive Order 13848 may be underway
The hints grow stronger.
Maria Bartiromo interviewed General Michael Flynn, who mentions that John Ratcliffe – The DNI — Director of National Intelligence – will report Friday. If the 2018 Executive Order — that […]
Rating: 8.4/10 (5 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3gHaIbL
December 13, 2020 at 01:39PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Biggest snowstorm in years set to slam Northeast

First comes a smaller storm , but by Wednesday some cities may pick up more than a half-a-season ’ s-worth of snow in 24 hours .
Up to12 inches of snow – or even more – in parts of Pennsylvania , New York , Connecticut , Massachusetts , Vermont and Maine .
Sun 13 Dec 2020 – Light to moderate snow is likely across portions of the central/southern High Plains today before entering the central Appalachians and Northeast on Monday , according to the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center in College Park , Maryland .
Around 3 to 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas Panhandle across northern Oklahoma and into portions of southern Missouri and far northern Arkansas .
In the Northeast , total snowfall amounts of 1 to 3 inches are possible , with higher amounts across the central Appalachians .
However , a major winter storm is currently entering the Pacific Northwest bringing potentially heavy mountain snow today in Washington , Oregon and the Sierra Nevada .
Eventually , the storm will traverse the entire United States , to finally wallop much of the densely populated Northeast .
By Wednesday , heavy snow will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pennsylvania , reaching Washington , D.C. , Philadelphia and New York City by early to mid afternoon .
Accumulating snow is likely along the I-95 corridor from Boston to New York , Philadelphia , Baltimore and Washington D.C .
The heaviest snowfall rates will start late Wednesday into Thursday morning , with 2 inches per hour piling up in spots .
New York City , Hartford , Providence and Boston are likely to be in the bullseye .
With forecasts calling for more than a foot of snow in many areas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The post Biggest snowstorm in years set to slam Northeast appeared first on Ice Age Now .

First comes a smaller storm, but by Wednesday some cities may pick up more than a half-a-season’s-worth of snow in 24 hours. Up to12 inches of snow – or even more – in parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine.
__________
Sun 13 Dec 2020 – Light to moderate snow is likely across portions of the central/southern High Plains today before entering the central Appalachians and Northeast on Monday, according to the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.
Around 3 to 6 inches of snow is possible from the Texas Panhandle across northern Oklahoma and into portions of southern Missouri and far northern Arkansas. In the Northeast, total snowfall amounts of 1 to 3 inches are possible, with higher amounts across the central Appalachians.
However, a major winter storm is currently entering the Pacific Northwest bringing potentially heavy mountain snow today in Washington, Oregon and the Sierra Nevada. Eventually, the storm will traverse the entire United States, to finally wallop much of the densely populated Northeast.
By Wednesday, heavy snow will break out in northern Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, reaching Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New York City by early to mid afternoon.
Accumulating snow is likely along the I-95 corridor from Boston to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C.
The heaviest snowfall rates will start late Wednesday into Thursday morning, with 2 inches per hour piling up in spots.
New York City, Hartford, Providence and Boston are likely to be in the bullseye.
With forecasts calling for more than a foot of snow in many areas, roads are likely to become hazardous.
https://www.weather.gov/
https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2020-12-11-east-coast-storm-noreaster-forecast
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/major-snow-and-ice-storm-brewing-for-the-east/865343
https://abc7ny.com/winter-storm-snow-is-it-going-to-in-new-york-city-nyc-weather/8723650/
The post Biggest snowstorm in years set to slam Northeast appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/2JQDElJ
December 13, 2020 at 12:59PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Climate change: Have countries kept their promises?

The UK ’ s BBC ( British Broadcasting Corporation ) has just published an assessment of five “ countries ” and how well they have kept their “ climate ” promises .
The five “ countries ” are the UK , Australia , EU , China , and the Philipinnes .
The article is by Matt McGrath .
Before I continue , please look at the names of the five “ countries ” , and without knowing anything about the data that the BBC used and how they did the assessment , ask yourself which ones the BBC will give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectations , knowing that Matt McGrath ’ s assessment would be highly politically charged , was for a Pass for EU and China , a Fail for Australia , and a don ’ t know for UK and Philippines .
Why were Australia and the Philippines included , instead of much more important CO2 emitters like India or Japan ?
The reason for inclusion of Australia is pretty obvious – one purpose of the article was to make Australia look bad ( remember , Australia was excluded from the recent virtual “ climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important than ever for Australia now to look bad ) .
The reason for including the Philippines is less obvious to me , maybe they wanted a lesser country in the list so that Australia wasn ’ t obviously in a different league to the others ( suggestions , anyone ? )
.
Looking at those charts , what can we see ?
1 .
Australia was assessed “ excluding forestry ” .
Why exclude forestry ?
Nothing was excluded for the others .
Well , I think the answer is here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australia ’ s total , but Queensland is a large part ] .
Matt McGrath would have been unable to make Australia look so bad if he had looked at the whole picture .
Dishonesty in certain quarters knows no bounds .
It probably took him quite a while to work out how he could fiddle Australia ’ s numbers .
With forestry included , Australia would have been the only one of the five that was well ahead of its 2020 and projected 2030 targets .
2 .
The percentage change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990 ( ish ) -2019 period shown in the charts were ( approx ) : When you are sea-sick , always remember to go to the leeward ( downwind ) side of the boat , so that you don ’ t get your own back .
The UK and EU have made themselves rather ill with their “ climate ” efforts , but when they look at China ’ s numbers , they must feel like they went to the windward side .
Only it wasn ’ t their own that they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whether the five “ countries ” had kept their promises was : China : “ mostly yes , but with some caveats ” Philippines : “ its actions to date are compatible with keeping warming well below 2C this century ” .
My assessment is that this article is so highly politicised that it is just a sick joke .
There is a perfectly good reason for the USA not to be in the BBC article – they are not in the Paris agreement – but just for interest , their 1990-2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 0 % ( 0Mt ) – 4,800Mt in 1990 , 5,800Mt in 2007 , 4,800Mt in 2019 ( data from here and here ) .
The BBC article is at https : //www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55222890 .
I have not checked whether Matt McGrath ’ s numbers are correct .
He gives no sources .
Anyone who believes the projections in the China chart is surely in cloud-cuckoo land .

Guest post by Mike Jonas
The UK’s BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has just published an assessment of five “countries” and how well they have kept their “climate” promises. The five “countries” are the UK, Australia, EU, China, and the Philipinnes. The article is by Matt McGrath.
Before I continue, please look at the names of the five “countries”, and without knowing anything about the data that the BBC used and how they did the assessment, ask yourself which ones the BBC will give a “pass” to.
…..
Matt McGrath presents a chart for each “country”:
My expectations, knowing that Matt McGrath’s assessment would be highly politically charged, was for a Pass for EU and China, a Fail for Australia, and a don’t know for UK and Philippines. Why were Australia and the Philippines included, instead of much more important CO2 emitters like India or Japan? The reason for inclusion of Australia is pretty obvious – one purpose of the article was to make Australia look bad (remember, Australia was excluded from the recent virtual “climate” conference, so it’s more important than ever for Australia now to look bad). The reason for including the Philippines is less obvious to me, maybe they wanted a lesser country in the list so that Australia wasn’t obviously in a different league to the others (suggestions, anyone?).
Looking at those charts, what can we see?
1. Australia was assessed “excluding forestry”. Why exclude forestry? Nothing was excluded for the others. Well, I think the answer is here:
[Australia’s] emissions from the land sector decreased 80% between 2005 and 2016 {..} Queensland land sector GHG emissions decreased from 97.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 1990 to 12 MtCO2e in 2016
[I don’t have Australia’s total, but Queensland is a large part]. Matt McGrath would have been unable to make Australia look so bad if he had looked at the whole picture. Dishonesty in certain quarters knows no bounds. It probably took him quite a while to work out how he could fiddle Australia’s numbers. With forestry included, Australia would have been the only one of the five that was well ahead of its 2020 and projected 2030 targets.
2. The percentage change and total change in CO2 emissions over the 1990(ish)-2019 period shown in the charts were (approx):
UK: -45% (-350Mt)
Australia (excluding forestry): +30% (+135Mt)
EU: -30% (-170Mt)
China: +350% (+10,500Mt)
Philippines: +30% (+110Mt)
When you are sea-sick, always remember to go to the leeward (downwind) side of the boat, so that you don’t get your own back. The UK and EU have made themselves rather ill with their “climate” efforts, but when they look at China’s numbers, they must feel like they went to the windward side. Only it wasn’t their own that they got back.
The BBC’s assessment of whether the five “countries” had kept their promises was:
UK: “mostly yes”.
Australia: “not really”.
EU: “mostly yes”.
China: “mostly yes, but with some caveats”
Philippines: “its actions to date are compatible with keeping warming well below 2C this century”.
My assessment is that this article is so highly politicised that it is just a sick joke.
There is a perfectly good reason for the USA not to be in the BBC article – they are not in the Paris agreement – but just for interest, their 1990-2019 numbers are (approx):
USA: 0% (0Mt) – 4,800Mt in 1990, 5,800Mt in 2007, 4,800Mt in 2019 (data from here and here).
The BBC article is at https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55222890. I have not checked whether Matt McGrath’s numbers are correct. He gives no sources. Anyone who believes the projections in the China chart is surely in cloud-cuckoo land.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--Expert On Germany’s Green Energy Policy: “We Are Threatened With A Dramatic Loss Of Prosperity”

Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by the Hamburger Abendblatt on a new book he co-authored : “ Unerwünschte Wahrheiten : Was Sie über den Klimawandel wissen sollten “ ( Unwanted Truths : What You Have To Know About Climate Change ) .
He warns that Germany ’ s energy policy of transitioning to renewable energies could lead to a “ dramatic loss of prosperity ” .
The interview appeared on December 11 , 2020 : What follows are some excerpts : Former Environment Senator Vahrenholt : “ We are threatened with a loss of prosperity “ ABENDBLATT : With solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficiency gains are possible .
VAHRENHOLT : That ’ s true with solar energy , when I think back to my first solar cells at Shell .
We can produce electricity for a few cents at sunny sites , and the drop in cost is not as significant with wind .
But that doesn ’ t solve the problem of intermediate storage , which becomes unaffordable with the amount that needs to be stored .
ABENDBLATT : Do you have something against renewable energies ?
VAHRENHOLT : No , not at all – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photovoltaics at Shell , wind power at Repower .
RWE Innogy ’ s first offshore plant in the North Sea bears my name : Fritz .
But I would never have thought of making such a fluctuating energy the sole source of electricity , heat and mobility.
” ABENDBLATT : What should be done , in your view ?
VAHRENHOLT : If the situation is as dramatic as they always say , I wonder why we don ’ t rethink it over .
Why aren ’ t we willing to think about capturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why do we refuse to look at new nuclear energy technologies with an open mind ?
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers them an alternative .
But we don ’ t want to see it .
VAHRENHOLT : Yes , but she is driven by public sentiment .
That ’ s what her about-face on nuclear power showed .
On the subject of deindustrialization , we ’ re with your party – the SPD .
VAHRENHOLT : Unfortunately , the SPD no longer has its clientele in mind .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green urban crowd .
But the employees in the steel , chemical or car industry have been lost from sight .
The little people will now be punished with a CO2 tax starting in January .
It will cost the average household 270 euros in the first year , and this amount is set to rise further and further to over 600 euros .
”

Die kalte Sonne
Image: GWPF
Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt was interviewed by the Hamburger Abendblatt on a new book he co-authored: “Unerwünschte Wahrheiten: Was Sie über den Klimawandel wissen sollten“ (Unwanted Truths: What You Have To Know About Climate Change).
He warns that Germany’s energy policy of transitioning to renewable energies could lead to a “dramatic loss of prosperity”.
The interview appeared on December 11, 2020: What follows are some excerpts:
Former Environment Senator Vahrenholt: “We are threatened with a loss of prosperity“ […] ABENDBLATT: With solar cells, we have just seen what efficiency gains are possible. VAHRENHOLT: That’s true with solar energy, when I think back to my first solar cells at Shell. We can produce electricity for a few cents at sunny sites, and the drop in cost is not as significant with wind. But that doesn’t solve the problem of intermediate storage, which becomes unaffordable with the amount that needs to be stored. ABENDBLATT: Do you have something against renewable energies? VAHRENHOLT: No, not at all – I helped to make them big, photovoltaics at Shell, wind power at Repower. RWE Innogy’s first offshore plant in the North Sea bears my name: Fritz. But I would never have thought of making such a fluctuating energy the sole source of electricity, heat and mobility.” ABENDBLATT: What should be done, in your view? VAHRENHOLT: If the situation is as dramatic as they always say, I wonder why we don’t rethink it over. Why aren’t we willing to think about capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants? And why do we refuse to look at new nuclear energy technologies with an open mind? Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers them an alternative. But we don’t want to see it. ABENDBLATT: Our chancellor is a natural scientist… VAHRENHOLT: Yes, but she is driven by public sentiment. That’s what her about-face on nuclear power showed. On the subject of deindustrialization, we’re with your party – the SPD. VAHRENHOLT: Unfortunately, the SPD no longer has its clientele in mind. There is already a party for the hip, green urban crowd. But the employees in the steel, chemical or car industry have been lost from sight. The little people will now be punished with a CO2 tax starting in January. It will cost the average household 270 euros in the first year, and this amount is set to rise further and further to over 600 euros.”
Read the complete interview here (paywall).
There were many comments with praise and criticism coming from readers over the Abendblatt interview. What follows is a positive comment:
This interview with Mr. Fritz Vahrenholt should be made compulsory reading for politicians of all parties with subsequent discussion and debate! Considerable food for thought!”
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/3ngUHvF
December 13, 2020 at 10:30AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-13--New UN Climate Emergency

New UN Climate Emergency

( 8 ) ABC News on Twitter : “ UN tells world to declare a state of climate emergency The @ @ @ @ @ same disaster from 30 years ago .
U.N .
Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not @

(8) ABC News on Twitter: “UN tells world to declare a state of climate emergency The UN and press recycling the same disaster from 30 years ago. U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
via Real Climate Science
https://ift.tt/3qRP6Om
December 13, 2020 at 10:25AM


Grid Stability Basics

Charles asked whether I would critique this new nonsense .
Sure , why not .
The highlighted ‘ sciency ’ article purports to create an ‘ open source ’ grid data resource using 17 ‘ synchronous grid ’ European regions to design and test how “ that will help develop new power systems capable of meeting changing demands , such as the move towards renewable energy sources.
” NOPE , this won ’ t help at all .
The body of this silly paper found observationally lower grid frequency variations in larger ‘ isolated ’ European subgrids !
Of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trivially true and known for many decades .
The reasons are intuitive and simple .
Larger grids by definition have more generation feeding the grid , so more grid inertia , and at the same time less ‘ instantaneous load variation ’ by simple virtue of the statistical law of large numbers .
Grid inertia is just the frequency stabilization that comes from the kinetic energy of large rotating generator masses .
As grid load ‘ instantly ’ increases , the frequency sags and the generator wants to slow down .
But by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injects some of its rotational kinetic energy until the driving source ( steam , or natural gas in CCGT ) can be turned up a bit to compensate .
CCGT is particularly good at this .
It runs about 61 % efficient at full load , 60 % efficient at 80 % load , and still 59 % efficient at just 40 % load .
The gas turbine power reaction time is literally about a second no different than a jet engine .
None of this ‘ open source data resource ’ helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Basic grid electrical engineering ( EE ) is simple and inescapable concerning renewables— they are uneconomic ( investment always falls when subsidies dry up ) , intermittent ( requiring underutilized backup generation ) , and provide no grid inertia ( which is automatic with big fossil fuel fired generators ) .
ALL BAD .
Irsching Bavaria ‘ s about 10 year old CCGT units 4 ( 375MW ) and 5 ( 860MW ) illustrate the problems that intermittent renewables lacking grid inertia create for any grid .
The owner wants to take them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run mainly as wind backup rather than grid load .
The German government refuses to make up the difference , yet also refuses to let them shut down .
In the bigger German renewable picture , northern Germany exports surplus wind power to Norway as essentially a giveaway .
That lets Norway throttle back its hydro .
Then , when Germany needs power because wind is insufficient , Norway spools up its hydropower and sells it to Germany at exorbitant rates .
To make matters worse , the German NIMBY crowd won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed North-South German transmission interconnect ‘ eyesores ’ —despite wind turbines that are bigger and uglier .
A small amount of renewables in a large stable grid presents no problems–and no need for this new study .
The backup capacity ( spinning reserve ) and grid inertia are already there .
But as renewable penetration grows as a proportion of any stable ‘ synchronous ’ grid , these issues grow and compound .
Depending on grid details ( like how much flexible hydro ) , renewable penetration above about 8-10 % ALWAYS creates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current grid engineering has been known now for well over 100 years , and nothing ‘ new ’ can change the established maths , physics , and electrical engineering ( EE ) .
There is also some ‘ basic EE stuff ’ this new ‘ open source data resource ’ ignored .
First , their ‘ new ’ grid frequency data is almost always available from the utilities ( grid operators ) , since required to manage the grid .
It is captured both at the generating plants and at the transmission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just asked for the utility data rather than gathering their own .
Second , their super duper ‘ proprietary ’ grid frequency detectors for capturing their new open source data can be purchased almost anywhere .
Such detectors are a common electrician ’ s tool .
A very high-end multipurpose ‘ pocket ’ unit is the Extech PQ3450 power quality analyzer , pictured .
Third , their finding that grid frequency sags when demand exceeds supply and rises when supply exceeds demand has been known since Tesla first envisioned AC generation by using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US is designed to be a stable 60 Hertz , EU 50 Hertz .
Because electric clocks depend on grid frequency , ‘ stable ’ is about plus/minus 0.2Hz in the US .
Just for fun ( because the above is all well trod ground at WUWT and Climate Etc ) , we also provide a simple math/science fun challenge to those at WUWT unfamiliar with AC electrical stuff .
( Thanks to a physics book full of hundreds of such challenges , sadly in Chicago rather than Fort Lauderdale , which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google ‘ facts ’ ) .
It is about right .
Imagine a high voltage AC transmission line between Chicago and New York .
( Hint : the distance does not matter much for this challenge , voltage does some , but is always ‘ high ’ . )
The challenge : how far does a single electron charge travel during its journey along this transmission line ?
Choices : The speed of light ( aka electromagnetic radiation ) is about 299792458 meters/second in a vacuum .
But ‘ electromagnetic force ( emf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not vacuum ; their metals have electrical resistance ( technically grid AC impedance , a combination of circuit resistance and reactance ) .
Although electrons pushed along by emf have essentially no mass , they still slow down lots in metals .
Skipping a bit of complex math explaining very simple physics , the reason you buy ‘ fat ’ DC audio cables with gold terminals is simple : DC current flows across the entire conductor cross section fairly uniformly .
A fatter cable has uniformly less cross sectional resistance ( DC speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminals lower connection resistance further since gold doesn ’ t corrode .
The result is truer high frequency pitch amplitudes .
As a side factoid , this same physics is why ‘ fat ’ high voltage DC transmission lines are preferred for long grid distances , like the Germany to Norway undersea interconnects mentioned above .
The ‘ fat ’ AC cable answer is different .
AC current has a conductor skin effect .
Unlike DC current , AC current travels mainly in an annular ‘ skin ’ ring whose thickness depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AC consequences of Maxwell ’ s equations as explained by Feynman ’ s ‘ Lectures on Physics ’ V. 2 chapter 32 , ’ skin effect ’ .
In a ‘ pure ’ copper conductor , that annular skin travel ( the center of the conductor essentially carries no AC current ) is only about 3.2 meters per second .
The much more common ( cheaper , lighter ) aluminum HV transmission conductor is only about 61 % of copper .
So in aluminum high voltage transmission lines electrons travel at best about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxidation .
AC is a sine wave varying from 0 to plus emf to 0 to minus emf to 0 at x times a second , ( US 60Hz , EU 50Hz ) .
One cycle is from zero voltage to max emf to zero to opposite polarity max emf back to zero .
The emf back and forth is a nominal US 120 peaks/second , 60 times in each direction .
( Side note : unlike most DC circuits , AC emf is related to , but not the same as , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AC challenge as simply digital rather than sine wave ( all on or all off emf rather than a varying emf sine wave ) , thereby removing any need for the correct calculus challenge formulation .
Then the most distance a virtually massless electron could travel in its aluminum high voltage skin is about ( 1.95/60 ) 3.2 cm , back and forth and back and forth .
The actual ( sine wave emf calculus ) US answer is less than one centimeter back and forth , and EU less than 2 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of emf except near the peak and trough of the sine wave , slowing down intermediate time things further .
Either answer ( over simplified or correct ) results in not very much electron travel distance ( c ) .
Returning to the main topic of this guest post , despite this new European ‘ grid research ’ : Anywhere , anytime , renewable subsidies get reduced , so does investment in them .
They are provably uneconomic , stand alone .
Renewables are intermittent ; yet do not cover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no grid inertia ; yet do not cover the costs of providing frequency stability using massive synchronous condensers .
More research and new ‘ open source ’ data resources concerning fundamentally bad propositions does not improve them .
NOPE !

Guest post by Rud Istvan
Charles asked whether I would critique this new nonsense. Sure, why not.
The highlighted ‘sciency’ article purports to create an ‘open source’ grid data resource using 17 ‘synchronous grid’ European regions to design and test how “that will help develop new power systems capable of meeting changing demands, such as the move towards renewable energy sources.” NOPE, this won’t help at all.
The body of this silly paper found observationally lower grid frequency variations in larger ‘isolated’ European subgrids! Of course larger grids have less frequency variation— something trivially true and known for many decades. The reasons are intuitive and simple. Larger grids by definition have more generation feeding the grid, so more grid inertia, and at the same time less ‘instantaneous load variation’ by simple virtue of the statistical law of large numbers.
Grid inertia is just the frequency stabilization that comes from the kinetic energy of large rotating generator masses. As grid load ‘instantly’ increases, the frequency sags and the generator wants to slow down. But by slowing, it also ‘instantly’ injects some of its rotational kinetic energy until the driving source (steam, or natural gas in CCGT) can be turned up a bit to compensate.
CCGT is particularly good at this. It runs about 61% efficient at full load, 60% efficient at 80% load, and still 59% efficient at just 40% load. The gas turbine power reaction time is literally about a second no different than a jet engine.
None of this ‘open source data resource’ helps ‘the move to renewables’. Basic grid electrical engineering (EE) is simple and inescapable concerning renewables— they are uneconomic (investment always falls when subsidies dry up), intermittent (requiring underutilized backup generation), and provide no grid inertia (which is automatic with big fossil fuel fired generators). ALL BAD.
Irsching Bavaria‘s about 10 year old CCGT units 4 (375MW) and 5 (860MW) illustrate the problems that intermittent renewables lacking grid inertia create for any grid. The owner wants to take them out of service because very unprofitable when run mainly as wind backup rather than grid load. The German government refuses to make up the difference, yet also refuses to let them shut down.
In the bigger German renewable picture, northern Germany exports surplus wind power to Norway as essentially a giveaway. That lets Norway throttle back its hydro. Then, when Germany needs power because wind is insufficient, Norway spools up its hydropower and sells it to Germany at exorbitant rates. To make matters worse, the German NIMBY crowd won’t let the utilities install more much needed North-South German transmission interconnect ‘eyesores’—despite wind turbines that are bigger and uglier.
A small amount of renewables in a large stable grid presents no problems–and no need for this new study. The backup capacity (spinning reserve) and grid inertia are already there. But as renewable penetration grows as a proportion of any stable ‘synchronous’ grid, these issues grow and compound. Depending on grid details (like how much flexible hydro), renewable penetration above about 8-10% ALWAYS creates extra costs and stability problems. Alternating current grid engineering has been known now for well over 100 years, and nothing ‘new’ can change the established maths, physics, and electrical engineering (EE).
There is also some ‘basic EE stuff’ this new ‘open source data resource’ ignored.
First, their ‘new’ grid frequency data is almost always available from the utilities (grid operators), since required to manage the grid. It is captured both at the generating plants and at the transmission to distribution substations. Perhaps they should have just asked for the utility data rather than gathering their own.
Second, their super duper ‘proprietary’ grid frequency detectors for capturing their new open source data can be purchased almost anywhere. Such detectors are a common electrician’s tool. A very high-end multipurpose ‘pocket’ unit is the Extech PQ3450 power quality analyzer, pictured.
Third, their finding that grid frequency sags when demand exceeds supply and rises when supply exceeds demand has been known since Tesla first envisioned AC generation by using complex numbers (a+bi). The US is designed to be a stable 60 Hertz, EU 50 Hertz. Because electric clocks depend on grid frequency, ‘stable’ is about plus/minus 0.2Hz in the US.
Just for fun (because the above is all well trod ground at WUWT and Climate Etc), we also provide a simple math/science fun challenge to those at WUWT unfamiliar with AC electrical stuff. (Thanks to a physics book full of hundreds of such challenges, sadly in Chicago rather than Fort Lauderdale, which I half reconstructed from memory and half from Google ‘facts’). It is about right.
Imagine a high voltage AC transmission line between Chicago and New York. (Hint: the distance does not matter much for this challenge, voltage does some, but is always ‘high’.) The challenge: how far does a single electron charge travel during its journey along this transmission line? Choices:
Kilometers Meters Centimeters
The speed of light (aka electromagnetic radiation) is about 299792458 meters/second in a vacuum. But ‘electromagnetic force (emf) wave guide’ wires are definitely not vacuum; their metals have electrical resistance (technically grid AC impedance, a combination of circuit resistance and reactance). Although electrons pushed along by emf have essentially no mass, they still slow down lots in metals.
Skipping a bit of complex math explaining very simple physics, the reason you buy ‘fat’ DC audio cables with gold terminals is simple: DC current flows across the entire conductor cross section fairly uniformly. A fatter cable has uniformly less cross sectional resistance (DC speaker output is analog), and gold terminals lower connection resistance further since gold doesn’t corrode. The result is truer high frequency pitch amplitudes. As a side factoid, this same physics is why ‘fat’ high voltage DC transmission lines are preferred for long grid distances, like the Germany to Norway undersea interconnects mentioned above.
The ‘fat’ AC cable answer is different. AC current has a conductor skin effect. Unlike DC current, AC current travels mainly in an annular ‘skin’ ring whose thickness depends on frequency (higherèthinner) thanks to interesting AC consequences of Maxwell’s equations as explained by Feynman’s ‘Lectures on Physics’ V. 2 chapter 32, ’skin effect’. In a ‘pure’ copper conductor, that annular skin travel (the center of the conductor essentially carries no AC current) is only about 3.2 meters per second. The much more common (cheaper, lighter) aluminum HV transmission conductor is only about 61% of copper. So in aluminum high voltage transmission lines electrons travel at best about (3.2m/s*0.61) ~1.95 m/s ignoring skin oxidation.
AC is a sine wave varying from 0 to plus emf to 0 to minus emf to 0 at x times a second, (US 60Hz, EU 50Hz). One cycle is from zero voltage to max emf to zero to opposite polarity max emf back to zero. The emf back and forth is a nominal US 120 peaks/second, 60 times in each direction. (Side note: unlike most DC circuits, AC emf is related to, but not the same as, voltage.) For simplicity imagine this AC challenge as simply digital rather than sine wave (all on or all off emf rather than a varying emf sine wave), thereby removing any need for the correct calculus challenge formulation. Then the most distance a virtually massless electron could travel in its aluminum high voltage skin is about (1.95/60) 3.2 cm, back and forth and back and forth. The actual (sine wave emf calculus) US answer is less than one centimeter back and forth, and EU less than 2. That is because there isn’t a lot of emf except near the peak and trough of the sine wave, slowing down intermediate time things further. Either answer (over simplified or correct) results in not very much electron travel distance (c).
Returning to the main topic of this guest post, despite this new European ‘ grid research’:
Anywhere, anytime, renewable subsidies get reduced, so does investment in them. They are provably uneconomic, stand alone.
Renewables are intermittent; yet do not cover the backup costs of intermittency.
Renewables provide no grid inertia; yet do not cover the costs of providing frequency stability using massive synchronous condensers.
More research and new ‘open source’ data resources concerning fundamentally bad propositions does not improve them. NOPE!
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-14--EU’s Green Deal based on natural gas as ‘transitional energy’

The lower carbon intensity of natural gas – which produces half the emissions of coal when burned in power plants – and the emergence of new technologies like hydrogen are setting gas apart from other fossil fuels in the clean energy transition .
On Friday , the European Council , which brings together the EU ’ s 27 national leaders , adopted a new greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 : -55 % from 1990 levels , up from the previous target of -40 % .
In their conclusions , the leaders reaffirmed that it will be up to each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy mix and to choose the most appropriate technologies to achieve collectively the 2030 climate target , including transitional technologies such as gas.
” The explicit mention of gas is contentious .
Gas advocates say it is ideally suited as a transition fuel for coal-reliant countries like Poland and Germany as they make decarbonisation their main priority .
This is because it has a lower emissions intensity than other fossil fuels like coal : gas produces on average half the emissions of coal when burned into power plants .
But perhaps more importantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas could now be used in the future for new gas technologies such biomethane or hydrogen gas .
“ With the current technology you can abate up to 90 % of the CO2 emissions from gas , which is already a lot , ” said Luca Giansanti , head of European government affairs at Italian energy company ENI .
“ Then you have decarbonised and low-carbon gas in the form of blue hydrogen .
Technological improvement in the future could bring this percentage up to 100 % , ” he told a EURACTIV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from coal to gas is already underway , and through that , gas has been contributing a lot to the reduction of emissions all over Europe .
Last year the contribution of gas to decarbonisation , together with renewables , has been impressive.
” Giansanti was referring to figures published at the beginning of the year , which showed that coal power generation had plunged by a record 24 % in Europe last year .
Half of that coal power capacity was replaced by renewables , and the other half by natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Giansanti said , because renewable power sources like wind and solar are intermittent , dependent on when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing .
So some kind of currently available steady source of power will be needed in the short to medium term to partner with renewables to keep grids operational .
The post EU ’ s Green Deal based on natural gas as ‘ transitional energy ’ appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Natural gas wins recognition as ‘transitional technology’ to climate neutrality
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (L) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) arrive at a press conference following a face-to-face EU summit, in Brussels, Belgium, 11 December 2020. [EPA-EFE/JOHANNA GERON]
The lower carbon intensity of natural gas – which produces half the emissions of coal when burned in power plants – and the emergence of new technologies like hydrogen are setting gas apart from other fossil fuels in the clean energy transition.
On Friday, the European Council, which brings together the EU’s 27 national leaders, adopted a new greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030: -55% from 1990 levels, up from the previous target of -40%.
In their conclusions, the leaders reaffirmed that it will be up to each member state “to decide on their energy mix and to choose the most appropriate technologies to achieve collectively the 2030 climate target, including transitional technologies such as gas.”
The explicit mention of gas is contentious. Gas advocates say it is ideally suited as a transition fuel for coal-reliant countries like Poland and Germany as they make decarbonisation their main priority. This is because it has a lower emissions intensity than other fossil fuels like coal: gas produces on average half the emissions of coal when burned into power plants.
But perhaps more importantly, the same infrastructure used for fossil gas could now be used in the future for new gas technologies such biomethane or hydrogen gas.
“With the current technology you can abate up to 90% of the CO2 emissions from gas, which is already a lot,” said Luca Giansanti, head of European government affairs at Italian energy company ENI. “Then you have decarbonised and low-carbon gas in the form of blue hydrogen. Technological improvement in the future could bring this percentage up to 100%,” he told a EURACTIV event last week.
“The switch from coal to gas is already underway, and through that, gas has been contributing a lot to the reduction of emissions all over Europe. Last year the contribution of gas to decarbonisation, together with renewables, has been impressive.”
Giansanti was referring to figures published at the beginning of the year, which showed that coal power generation had plunged by a record 24% in Europe last year. Half of that coal power capacity was replaced by renewables, and the other half by natural gas.
This partnership with renewables is key, Giansanti said, because renewable power sources like wind and solar are intermittent, dependent on when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. So some kind of currently available steady source of power will be needed in the short to medium term to partner with renewables to keep grids operational.
The post EU’s Green Deal based on natural gas as ‘transitional energy’ appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2KlviSP
December 14, 2020 at 06:16AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-14--China has no intention to reduce fossil fuel use. Just the opposite.

A damning new report from GWPF outlines massive new energy projects being undertaken by the CCP which dwarf its figleaf ‘ green energy ’ enterprises , here ’ s a short excerpt , but everyone should download and read the full document .
China today relies on fossil fuels for 86 % of its total primary energy consumption ( 58 % from coal , 20 % from petroleum and other liquids , and 8 % from natural gas ) .28 Rather than curbing its appetite for fossil fuels , Beijing is voraciously seeking more .
In the case of coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restricted domestic coal production , seeking to rapidly raise production capacity .
‘ In the first half of 2020 China approved 23 gigawatts-worth of new coal power projects , more than the previous two years combined , ’ reported AFP , citing Global Energy Monitor , a San Francisco-based environmental NGO .
The CCP approved 141 million tons of new annual coal mining capacity in the first half of 2019 .
In all of 2018 , it approved 25 million tons .
The story is similar with oil and gas , with huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s almost as if China knows that conditions are likely to get more difficult both in terms of international relations and in terms of climatic conditions , in the face of the solar grand minimum we are entering .
The western countries don ’ t have any ability to affect China ’ s decisions regarding energy , but they do have the ability , and urgent necessity , to take stock of their rush to over-reliance on intermittent power sources such as wind and solar energy .
The GWPF report details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the CCP to act as cheerleaders for China ’ s duplicitous pronouncements on climate action .
The revelation that CCP operatives have been infiltrating western countries ’ industries , diplomatic and non-governmental organisations should be a big wake up call to our political leaders .
Get your heads out of the sand !

New pipelines under construction between Russia and China.
A damning new report from GWPF outlines massive new energy projects being undertaken by the CCP which dwarf its figleaf ‘green energy’ enterprises, here’s a short excerpt, but everyone should download and read the full document.
China today relies on fossil fuels for 86% of its total primary energy consumption (58% from coal, 20% from petroleum and other liquids, and 8% from natural gas).28 Rather than curbing its appetite for fossil fuels, Beijing is voraciously seeking more. In the case of coal, China has aggressively relaxed regulations that restricted domestic coal production, seeking to rapidly raise production capacity. ‘In the first half of 2020 China approved 23 gigawatts-worth of new coal power projects, more than the previous two years combined,’ reported
AFP, citing Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based environmental NGO. The CCP approved 141 million tons of new annual coal mining capacity in the first half of 2019. In all of 2018, it approved 25 million tons.
The story is similar with oil and gas, with huge new pipeline and fracking projects underway. It’s almost as if China knows that conditions are likely to get more difficult both in terms of international relations and in terms of climatic conditions, in the face of the solar grand minimum we are entering.
The western countries don’t have any ability to affect China’s decisions regarding energy, but they do have the ability, and urgent necessity, to take stock of their rush to over-reliance on intermittent power sources such as wind and solar energy. The GWPF report details the way western NGOs have been used by the CCP to act as cheerleaders for China’s duplicitous pronouncements on climate action.
The revelation that CCP operatives have been infiltrating western countries’ industries, diplomatic and non-governmental organisations should be a big wake up call to our political leaders. Get your heads out of the sand!
Full report here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/34bY4MH
December 14, 2020 at 06:09AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-14--Achmed’s “Up on the Housetop Ode to 2020 – Video

Achmed ’ s “ Up on the Housetop Ode to 2020 ” by Jeff Dunham Achmed shows a bit of @ @ @ @ @ in Dunham ’ s new Comedy Central special , “ Jeff Dunham ’ s Completely @ @ @ @ @ !
” Follow the bouncing bomb in this sing-along as your favorite dead terrorist bids @ @ @ @ @ pandemic !
Check it out !
The post Achmed ’ s “ Up on the @ @ @ @ @ Video appeared first on Ice Age Now .

Achmed’s “Up on the Housetop Ode to 2020” by Jeff Dunham
Achmed shows a bit of the ol’ holiday spirit in Dunham’s new Comedy Central special, “Jeff Dunham’s Completely Unrehearsed Last-Minute Pandemic Holiday Special!”
Follow the bouncing bomb in this sing-along as your favorite dead terrorist bids adieu to 2020 AND the pandemic! Check it out!
The post Achmed’s “Up on the Housetop Ode to 2020 – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3nhWXCB
December 14, 2020 at 05:46AM