iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-18--Prominent German Prof Says COVID-19 Lockdown “Completely Unnecessary”, “Unbelievably Damaging To The

Prominent German Prof Says COVID-19 Lockdown “Completely Unnecessary”, “Unbelievably Damaging To The Economy”

In an interview with Punkt.Preradovic , finance Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg of the Leibniz University of Hanover said Germany ’ s lockdown has “ amounted to nothing ” , has had no effect on the spread of the corona virus and that the spread had already slowed down below a reproduction number of 1.0 before the lockdown .
In the interview , the prominent professor , once an adviser to former chancellor Gerhard Schröder , cited a chart from the Robert Koch Institute ( RKI ) that was issued on April 15th : As the RKI chart shows , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly before reaching a peak on about March 10 .
By March 21st , the reproduction number dropped below 1.0 .
It wasn ’ t until March 23 that the German government decreed a lockdown .
As the chart shows , since the lockdown was enacted , the reproduction number did not change at all .
It ’ s had no effect .
“ It is not the case that the reproduction number went down after the lockdown ” , Professor Homburg says .
“ There are two points we can draw from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not necessary because the number was below 1 , and secondly , the lockdown was not effective because the number didn ’ t drop afterwards.
” Homburg agrees that the lockdown led to “ enormous economic damage ” and was “ completely unnecessary ” .
In view of the data , Homburg does not know why the lockdown continues even today .
Currently the reproduction rate stands at 0.7 .
Homburg tells Preradovic that the politicians issued the lockdown in panic , came too late and thus so served no purpose .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy , but also for other human factors .
It ’ s about suicides and delayed operations.
” Citing the RKO numbers , Homburg also says : “ There is not going to be any terrible epidemic .
All the panic was fanned by the Robert Koch Institute , who said on March 20th that in the best case we will see 300,000 dead , and maybe 1.5 million dead.
” Today the number is well under 5000 .
Homburg explains that the origin of the alarming death projections were adopted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that “ it ’ s unbelievable that the government allowed itself to be so misled.
” Financial ruin for no reason at all On the overall situation , Homburg comments : “ It ’ s completely unimaginable .
Huge damage is being caused .
People and businesses are being financially ruined without any reason at all.
” On why it ’ s happening , Homburg says that German politicians , such as Angela Merkel , have gotten full cover from the media , and today enjoy high approval ratings because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as long as the polls remain so , Homburg says , there ’ s little incentive for politicians to relax the lockdown .
Trump may wish to take a look at what ’ s happening in Germany , and move fast to end the destructive lockdown in USA .

In an interview with Punkt.Preradovic, finance Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg of the Leibniz University of Hanover said Germany’s lockdown has “amounted to nothing”, has had no effect on the spread of the corona virus and that the spread had already slowed down below a reproduction number of 1.0 before the lockdown.
Citing data from Robert Koch Institute (RKI)
In the interview, the prominent professor, once an adviser to former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, cited a chart from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) that was issued on April 15th:
As the RKI chart shows, in early March the reproduction number had risen rapidly before reaching a peak on about March 10. By March 21st, the reproduction number dropped below 1.0.
“Ineffective”, “completely unnecessary”
It wasn’t until March 23 that the German government decreed a lockdown. As the chart shows, since the lockdown was enacted, the reproduction number did not change at all. It’s had no effect.
“It is not the case that the reproduction number went down after the lockdown”, Professor Homburg says. “There are two points we can draw from this: First, the lockdown was not necessary because the number was below 1, and secondly, the lockdown was not effective because the number didn’t drop afterwards.”
“Enormous economic damage”
Homburg agrees that the lockdown led to “enormous economic damage” and was “completely unnecessary”. In view of the data, Homburg does not know why the lockdown continues even today. Currently the reproduction rate stands at 0.7.
Homburg tells Preradovic that the politicians issued the lockdown in panic, came too late and thus so served no purpose. “It was not only unbelievably damaging for the economy, but also for other human factors. It’s about suicides and delayed operations.”
Panic fanned by absurd numbers
Citing the RKO numbers, Homburg also says: “There is not going to be any terrible epidemic. All the panic was fanned by the Robert Koch Institute, who said on March 20th that in the best case we will see 300,000 dead, and maybe 1.5 million dead.” Today the number is well under 5000.
One single alarmist paper
Homburg explains that the origin of the alarming death projections were adopted by the RKI from one single alarmist paper and that “it’s unbelievable that the government allowed itself to be so misled.”
Financial ruin for no reason at all
On the overall situation, Homburg comments: “It’s completely unimaginable. Huge damage is being caused. People and businesses are being financially ruined without any reason at all.”
On why it’s happening, Homburg says that German politicians, such as Angela Merkel, have gotten full cover from the media, and today enjoy high approval ratings because of the appearance of being competent crisis managers. And as long as the polls remain so, Homburg says, there’s little incentive for politicians to relax the lockdown.
Trump may wish to take a look at what’s happening in Germany, and move fast to end the destructive lockdown in USA.
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/2KhlNko
April 18, 2020 at 12:41PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-18--Timing of Earth’s biggest earthquakes follows a ‘devil’s staircase’ pattern

Fractals linked to earthquakes .
Is that a first ?
The timing of large , shallow earthquakes across the globe follows a mathematical pattern known as the devil ’ s staircase , according to a new study of seismic sequences .
Previously , scientists and their models have theorized that earthquake sequences happen periodically or quasi-periodically , following cycles of growing tension and release .
Researchers call it the elastic rebound model , says UPI .
Instead , scientists found global earthquake sequences tend to occur in clusters — outbursts of seismic events separated by long but irregular intervals of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week in the journal Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , suggest large earthquakes increase the probability of subsequent seismic events .
Previous models failed to account for the interconnected nature of global fault systems .
Seismic event don ’ t occur in isolation .
Each major quake alters the dynamics of other fault systems .
While the research suggests large quake sequences are “ burstier ” than previously thought , they remain as unpredictable as ever .
The gaps between bursts are irregular , making it exceedingly difficult to anticipate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the devil ’ s staircase , such temporal patterns are a fractal property of nonlinear complex systems , in which a change of any part — e.g.
, rupture of a fault or fault segment — could affect the behavior of the whole system , ” scientists wrote in their paper .
The devil ’ s staircase pattern is also evidence in Earth ’ s sedimentation sequences and reversals of the planet ’ s magnetic field , as well as crustal uplift and erosion rates .
In addition to ignoring the interconnected nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern models focused on too few earthquakes across time frames that were too short and regions that were too small .
As a result , earlier models failed to pick up on the staircase pattern .

Fractals linked to earthquakes. Is that a first?
The timing of large, shallow earthquakes across the globe follows a mathematical pattern known as the devil’s staircase, according to a new study of seismic sequences.
Previously, scientists and their models have theorized that earthquake sequences happen periodically or quasi-periodically, following cycles of growing tension and release.
Researchers call it the elastic rebound model, says UPI.
In reality, periodic earthquake sequences are surprisingly rare.
Instead, scientists found global earthquake sequences tend to occur in clusters — outbursts of seismic events separated by long but irregular intervals of silence.
The findings, published this week in the journal Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, suggest large earthquakes increase the probability of subsequent seismic events.
Previous models failed to account for the interconnected nature of global fault systems. Seismic event don’t occur in isolation. Each major quake alters the dynamics of other fault systems.
While the research suggests large quake sequences are “burstier” than previously thought, they remain as unpredictable as ever. The gaps between bursts are irregular, making it exceedingly difficult to anticipate the next cluster.
“Mathematically described as the devil’s staircase, such temporal patterns are a fractal property of nonlinear complex systems, in which a change of any part — e.g., rupture of a fault or fault segment — could affect the behavior of the whole system,” scientists wrote in their paper.
The devil’s staircase pattern is also evidence in Earth’s sedimentation sequences and reversals of the planet’s magnetic field, as well as crustal uplift and erosion rates.
In addition to ignoring the interconnected nature of fault systems, most previous earthquake pattern models focused on too few earthquakes across time frames that were too short and regions that were too small. As a result, earlier models failed to pick up on the staircase pattern.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/3clB5AC
April 18, 2020 at 12:06PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-18--Excess costs of UK Weather Dependent Renewable Energy: 2020

These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question : “ roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the present fleet of UK Weather Dependent Renewables , using conventional generation technologies , ( Nuclear or Gas-firing ) ?
and how do those figures compare ?
” .
Accordingly the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of UK Weather Dependent Renewables as in 2019 .
The approximate long-term cost commitment is ~250 £billion according to these calculations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet amounts to about twice the annual , cost of the NHS or about 11 % of annual UK GDP .
As can be seen later these estimates show that using Weather Dependent Renewables costs about 12 times as much as using Natural Gas and about 3 times as much as Nuclear power .
The late Professor Sir David Mackay ( former chef scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change ) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was : Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power .
Weather Dependent Renewables are thus both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable .
Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Nuclear power or Gas-firing .
At the time he also said : “ there ’ s so much delusion , it ’ s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions , that they are willing to not think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics.
” and later in the same interview he said that : “ if it is possible to get through the winter with low CO2 Nuclear and possibly with Carbon Capture and Storage there is no point in having any Wind or Solar power in the UK generation mix ” But it seems that having bought into the assumption that Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is an immediate and existential threat that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but devastatingly wasteful calculations assume a position of “ wilful ignorance ” , and a stance of “ don ’ t confuse me with the facts , we are saving the world “ .
There is also an irrational determination in Government that the only solution to reducing CO2 emissions is the use of Weather Dependent Renewables .
This is a fallacy : the only proven solutions to CO2 emissions reduction are the use Nuclear energy as in France and / or the use of Natural gas as in the USA , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of hand : they do not accord with the “ Green ” religion .
Accordingly this costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay ’ s back of the envelope calculations , in the UK , showing that Weather Dependent Renewables are plainly expensive .
The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet roughly amount to some 55£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 240£billion .
In 2019 UK Weather dependent renewables generated a total of some 7.3 Gigawatts of power from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value of ~35 Gigawatts , thus achieving an overall productivity factor for Weather Dependent Renewables of ~20.9 % .
The graphic below shows the effect of combining the capital and long-term costs of the various generation technologies with their productivity factors as achieved in the UK in 2019 .
The model of comparative costs uses data from the US Energy Information Administration , ( EIA ) , updated 2020 and translated to GB Pounds , see later .
Productivity / Capacity percentage is the performance measure for generation technologies , it consists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power rating .
The most useful comparison is to assess the costs in £Billion/Gigawatt of power produced accounting for Productivity , the comparison as shown below : All traditional dispatchable power generation technologies are all capable of Productivity of up to 90 % , only having to be curtailed by routine maintenance , whereas Weather Dependent Renewables when in combination over the year only return ~21 % of their Name Plate rating .
The resulting comparative costs of Weather Dependent Renewables are shown below .
According to these estimates overall the 2019 UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in overnight capital costs or ~8.5£billion/Gigawatt generated with a future commitment of some ~260£billion or ~35£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term .
Conventional power generation , ( Nuclear and Gas-firing ) is more than competitive with Renewable costs with capital costs of ~5.5£billion/Gigawatt for Nuclear or less than 1£billion/Gigawatt for Gas-firing , as above .
Because of the comparative costs and productivity factors Offshore wind is certainly the most expensive to install at ~33£Billion to date and likely further ongoing costs of ~150£billion or ~52£billion/Gigawatt produced .
Current Solar PV cost ~13£billion to install and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced .
UK on grid solar installations virtually ceased in 2019 .
The installed UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet of ~35Gigawatts , were it fully productive , would have often matched UK demand , however the limited average Renewables productivity factor of ~20 % means that the Renewables fleet only managed to unreliably generate about a fifth of that UK requirement , and that output was often uncoordinated with demand .
This post shows clearly the likely cost differentials and overspend over effective traditional Electricity generation technologies , ( Gas-firing and Nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bound to incur .
These calculations clearly contradict the popular assertion that Weather Dependent Renewables are now price competitive with conventional power generation , Gas-firing and even Nuclear power .
Those assertions ignore : • all government subsidies and other fiscal support • the productivity of Renewables when compared to traditional generation technologies .
The real costs of supporting political “ Green Virtue Signalling ” and the Government ’ s acceptance of the urgency of the “ Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ” hypothesis is exposed here .
At the same time , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs can only ever contribute to a reduction of about a quarter of the UK ’ s 1.1 % of 2018 Global CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation .
In other words the temperature effect of these self-harming measures by the UK on Global temperature would eventually be undetectable .
These estimates count the full output productivity of Weather Dependent Renewable generation technologies .
They are thus generous assessments of the true value of the power produced by Weather Dependent Renewables .
They do not account for the timing and thus of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce at any one moment in time .
In addition these data do not account for the difficulty in coping with the wide variability and intermittency of the power output by Weather Dependent Renewables within a Nation ’ s supply Grid , which is tasked to provide dependable and consistent power for that Nation .
This post gives indicative , ( back of the envelope , expressed in £billions ) , estimates of the net capital and net 60 year long-term costs of Weather Dependent Renewables as compared to the use of Gas-firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
The calculations are reasonable estimates but should be in the right ball park and not over exaggerated .
They are in line with the sort of “ back of the envelope ” calculations that could have been carried out by the late Professor Sir David Mackay .
These net calculations are free of the market distortions arising from the political support interventions that have had to have been made to support Renewables .
They are based on the 2020 cost figures produced by the US Energy Information Association , ( EIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation in the UK .
They do account for a recent reduction in the likely costs of Solar PV power generation .
The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~62£billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~260£billion , were those currently installed Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term , a similar service life to Nuclear power Generation .
They give an idea of the present scale of the bare costs for “ Green virtue signalling ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
The equivalent costs using Gas-firing to provide the same level of consistent power generation would be ~7£billion in capital costs and a further ~21£billion long-term .
At 0.34 Gigatonnes in 2018 , the UK produced ~1.1 % of the Global CO2 emissions and power generation could only have accounted for less than one quarter of those CO2 emissions , transport and space heating , etc .
accounting for the remaining CO2 emissions .
So making costly and self-harming modifications UK electrical generation technologies can only have a marginal and minor impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK and Global CO2 emissions .
That impact is even less if one looks into the CO2 emission and energy requirements of Renewable technologies and from their use of fossil fuels essential for their manufacture , installation and on to their eventual demolition .
Whenever announcements are made about Weather Dependent Renewable Energy installations , they are reported as the full Name Plate rating , ( in other words the maximum potential power output the installation can produce under ideal Weather conditions ) , and often disingenuously as the number of homes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power output .
The question of Productivity or Load Factors is never fully explained , so such announcements are deliberately deceptive , as the average Renewable productivity only amounts to about 20 % of its full Name Plate rating .
So such promotional Renewable Energy announcements thus illogically assume that the wind blows all the time at productive speeds and that the sun shines overhead 24 hours/day and the seasons never change from a clear day in summer .
The Renewable Energy Foundation time series data for the UK 2002 – 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dependent Renewables and Green energy in the UK .
It has provided the most up to date information available at the end of 2019 .
Its time series data on UK Renewable Installations runs from 2002 up to date .
This includes the Nameplate rating of installations and the annual Gigawatt Hour electrical output over the year for each generation technology .
Graphic representations of those data as time series presentations show the progress of UK Weather Dependent Renewables .
According the Renewable Energy Foundation data , 2019 was a poorer year than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Productivity expressed as a percentage load factor , ( actual power produced / nameplate value ) , is crucial to evaluating the true comparative value of the power produced .
The progress since 2002 of installation and production of Weather Dependent Renewables in the UK is shown below .
The history of Productivity figures that have been achieved in the UK are shown below .
Overall , the UK Weather Dependent Renewables performance has generally just exceeded ~20 % productivity level , but provided a poorer performance in 2019 .
Onshore Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK , has achieved productivity around ~23 % .
Offshore Wind power has been more variable but achieved a productivity figure of ~32 % in 2019 .
The productivity of Solar Power in the UK is consistently at or below ~10 % productivity level .
But of course the “ trip ” of an Offshore wind farm on a breezy summer afternoon contributed to the major UK power outage of 9/8/2019 .
An outage like that will be all the more severe and probably longer lasting one still foggy winter evening soon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inertia in the grid to overcome short term sudden variability nor to enable a “ Black Start ” , if needed .
The two graphs below show the progress of Renewable installations in the UK since 2002 noting : • the gross over commitment to Solar PV Power 2013-2016 • a remarkable further cut back from the previous enthusiastic Renewables installations occurred in 2019 , as it seems to be coming to be realised that they do not provide a truly viable answer to maintaining a consistent power supply .
• the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2017 particularly for Offshore Wind power .
In 2017 this alone amounted a future cost of some 150£billion .
Those future costs will be incurred just from the current UK Renewables installations .
As pressure grows for further generation by nominally Renewables those future costs are bound to escalate .
The table above gave a capital valuation of the current 2020 UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~62£billion with probable ongoing costs of ~260£billion .
This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power stations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using Gas-firing for equivalent power generation .
The excess capital expenditures of Renewables range from ~21£billion to ~55£billion .
The long-term excess expenditures range from 160£billion to 236£billion depending on the substituted Nuclear or Gas-fired technology respectively .
These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the UK population both via direct taxation supporting subsidies to Weather Dependent Renewables and added to UK utility bills by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on the UK electricity generation .
That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorest in UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Energy Poverty ” .
The following three tables show how differing existing Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs .
Onshore Wind power is the most competitive achieving close to cost parity with Nuclear power in capital spend but only being about 1.3 times as expensive long-term .
Onshore wind power is only about 5 – 6 times more costly than Gas-firing .
Offshore wind power is the least cost-effective being ~2.6 – 4.4 times more costly than Nuclear but in the region of 13 – 18 times more costly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost effective than Offshore being 2-3 times more costly than Nuclear to install and 12 – 14 times more costly than Gas-firing .
They together are responsible for more than 75 % of the excess costs of the UK Renewables fleet even though they are responsible for only ~55 % of the Renewable power output produced .
Together wastage in the capital cost from Offshore wind and Solar power amounts to some 42£billion with a long-term anticipated cost of ~200billion .
The comparative costings are derived from US EIA data updated in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore the “ EIA Technological optimism factor ” above , which would adversely affect the comparative costs of Offshore wind , ( by about 9£billion/Gigawatt : long-term ) and to a much less extent Nuclear power .
These costs are summarised and translated into £billion in the table below , £1 ≅ US $ 1.2 : The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as £billion/Gigawatt .
These basic data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Renewable Energy , whereby it can be claimed that Renewables approximate to cost parity .
It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables .
These recent 2020 EIA updates fully account for any recent cost reductions or underbids for Renewable technology , particularly those for Solar panels .
The table above assumes that the purchasing power of £1 is equivalent to ~US $ 1.20 .
The service life allocated for Renewables used above may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wind and Solar Photovoltaics .
The production capability of all Renewable technologies have been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life .
Note that in addition that these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables .
The results above only account for the cost comparisons for the actual electrical power generated accounting for the measured productivity capability of each generating technology .
The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from : • unreliability in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing of power generation , often unlikely to be coordinated with demand • the costs of back up generation only used on occasions but wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless • any consideration of electrical storage using batteries , which would impose very significant additional costs , were long term , ( several days ) , battery storage even economically feasible • inability to recover from a “ black start ” , when essential after failure .
In addition these cost analyses do not account for : • The “ Carbon footprint ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture , installation and eventual demolition .
When viewed in the round , all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels as feedstocks or fuels .
• The Energy Return on Energy Invested , Renewables may well not produce as much Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation .
They certainly do not provide the regular excess power sufficient to support the multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “ saving the planet ” from the output of the UK ’ s small level of CO2 emissions , ( for electricity generation , ~25 % of 1.1 % , the UK 2018 portion of Man-made Global CO2 emissions ) , their actual cost , in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability , Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation .
The annual UK CO2 emissions output is well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 emissions in China and the Developing world .
It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government mandated excess expenditures to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps preventing undetectable temperature increases by the end of the century , especially in a context where the Developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it ’ s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades .
Reducing CO2 emissions as a means to control a “ warming ” climate seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia , as the coming end of our current warm and benign Holocene interglacial epoch approaches .
In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years , in Spring 2020 the world is faced with a different but VERY REAL economic emergency from the COVID-19 virus pandemic .
That Emergency , with the world facing the immediate death of many citizens as well as global economic breakdown , should put the costly Government mandated attempts to control the future climate into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over “ Climate Change ” truly are , when compared to the economic effects of this pandemic .

Reposted from edmhdotme
Summary
These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question:
“roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the present fleet of UK Weather Dependent Renewables, using conventional generation technologies, (Nuclear or Gas-firing) ? and how do those figures compare ?”.
Accordingly the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of UK Weather Dependent Renewables as in 2019. The approximate long-term cost commitment is ~250 £billion according to these calculations. The present long-term cost estimate for the UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet amounts to about twice the annual, cost of the NHS or about 11% of annual UK GDP. As can be seen later these estimates show that using Weather Dependent Renewables costs about 12 times as much as using Natural Gas and about 3 times as much as Nuclear power.
An Appalling Delusion
The late Professor Sir David Mackay (former chef scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of powering a developed country such as the UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was:
“an appalling delusion”.
Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power. Weather Dependent Renewables are thus both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable.
Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Nuclear power or Gas-firing.
At the time he also said:
“there’s so much delusion, it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics.”
and later in the same interview he said that:
“if it is possible to get through the winter with low CO2 Nuclear and possibly with Carbon Capture and Storage there is no point in having any Wind or Solar power in the UK generation mix”
But it seems that having bought into the assumption that Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is an immediate and existential threat that Government elites when faced with these simple but devastatingly wasteful calculations assume a position of “wilful ignorance”, and a stance of “don’t confuse me with the facts, we are saving the world“.
https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/we-need-a-democratic-revolt-against-the-climate-extremists/ minute 40 onwards
There is also an irrational determination in Government that the only solution to reducing CO2 emissions is the use of Weather Dependent Renewables.
This is a fallacy: the only proven solutions to CO2 emissions reduction are the use Nuclear energy as in France and / or the use of Natural gas as in the USA, but these real solutions are somehow always rejected out of hand: they do not accord with the “Green” religion.
Accordingly this costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay’s back of the envelope calculations, in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables are plainly expensive. The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet roughly amount to some 55£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 240£billion.
Cost comparisons
In 2019 UK Weather dependent renewables generated a total of some 7.3 Gigawatts of power from an installed fleet with an installed Name Plate value of ~35 Gigawatts, thus achieving an overall productivity factor for Weather Dependent Renewables of ~20.9%. The graphic below shows the effect of combining the capital and long-term costs of the various generation technologies with their productivity factors as achieved in the UK in 2019. The model of comparative costs uses data from the US Energy Information Administration, (EIA), updated 2020 and translated to GB Pounds, see later.
Productivity / Capacity percentage is the performance measure for generation technologies, it consists of the actual Power output / Name Plate power rating.
The most useful comparison is to assess the costs in £Billion/Gigawatt of power produced accounting for Productivity, the comparison as shown below:
All traditional dispatchable power generation technologies are all capable of Productivity of up to 90%, only having to be curtailed by routine maintenance, whereas Weather Dependent Renewables when in combination over the year only return ~21% of their Name Plate rating. The resulting comparative costs of Weather Dependent Renewables are shown below.
According to these estimates overall the 2019 UK installed Weather Dependent Renewables fleet cost ~62£billion in overnight capital costs or ~8.5£billion/Gigawatt generated with a future commitment of some ~260£billion or ~35£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term. Conventional power generation, (Nuclear and Gas-firing) is more than competitive with Renewable costs with capital costs of ~5.5£billion/Gigawatt for Nuclear or less than 1£billion/Gigawatt for Gas-firing, as above.
Because of the comparative costs and productivity factors Offshore wind is certainly the most expensive to install at ~33£Billion to date and likely further ongoing costs of ~150£billion or ~52£billion/Gigawatt produced.
Current Solar PV cost ~13£billion to install and a further future costs of about 54£billion or ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced. UK on grid solar installations virtually ceased in 2019.
The installed UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet of ~35Gigawatts, were it fully productive, would have often matched UK demand, however the limited average Renewables productivity factor of ~20% means that the Renewables fleet only managed to unreliably generate about a fifth of that UK requirement, and that output was often uncoordinated with demand.
https://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data
This post shows clearly the likely cost differentials and overspend over effective traditional Electricity generation technologies, (Gas-firing and Nuclear), that Weather Dependent Renewables are bound to incur.
These calculations clearly contradict the popular assertion that Weather Dependent Renewables are now price competitive with conventional power generation, Gas-firing and even Nuclear power. Those assertions ignore:
all government subsidies and other fiscal support
the productivity of Renewables when compared to traditional generation technologies.
The Costs of “Green Virtue Signalling”
The real costs of supporting political “Green Virtue Signalling” and the Government’s acceptance of the urgency of the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” hypothesis is exposed here.
At the same time, it must be realised that these substantial excess costs can only ever contribute to a reduction of about a quarter of the UK’s 1.1% of 2018 Global CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation. In other words the temperature effect of these self-harming measures by the UK on Global temperature would eventually be undetectable.
These estimates count the full output productivity of Weather Dependent Renewable generation technologies. They are thus generous assessments of the true value of the power produced by Weather Dependent Renewables. They do not account for the timing and thus of the usefulness of the power those Renewables may produce at any one moment in time. In addition these data do not account for the difficulty in coping with the wide variability and intermittency of the power output by Weather Dependent Renewables within a Nation’s supply Grid, which is tasked to provide dependable and consistent power for that Nation.
This post gives indicative, (back of the envelope, expressed in £billions), estimates of the net capital and net 60 year long-term costs of Weather Dependent Renewables as compared to the use of Gas-firing and Nuclear for electricity generation in the UK. The calculations are reasonable estimates but should be in the right ball park and not over exaggerated.
They are in line with the sort of “back of the envelope” calculations that could have been carried out by the late Professor Sir David Mackay. These net calculations are free of the market distortions arising from the political support interventions that have had to have been made to support Renewables. They are based on the 2020 cost figures produced by the US Energy Information Association, (EIA) and Data from the Renewable Energy Foundation in the UK. They do account for a recent reduction in the likely costs of Solar PV power generation.
The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~62£billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~260£billion, were those currently installed Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term, a similar service life to Nuclear power Generation.
They give an idea of the present scale of the bare costs for “Green virtue signalling”, responding to the Green agenda in the UK. The equivalent costs using Gas-firing to provide the same level of consistent power generation would be ~7£billion in capital costs and a further ~21£billion long-term.
At 0.34 Gigatonnes in 2018, the UK produced ~1.1% of the Global CO2 emissions and power generation could only have accounted for less than one quarter of those CO2 emissions, transport and space heating, etc. accounting for the remaining CO2 emissions.
So making costly and self-harming modifications UK electrical generation technologies can only have a marginal and minor impact on a very small proportion of current UK and Global CO2 emissions. That impact is even less if one looks into the CO2 emission and energy requirements of Renewable technologies and from their use of fossil fuels essential for their manufacture, installation and on to their eventual demolition.
Whenever announcements are made about Weather Dependent Renewable Energy installations, they are reported as the full Name Plate rating, (in other words the maximum potential power output the installation can produce under ideal Weather conditions), and often disingenuously as the number of homes that could be supplied at their full level of power output.
The question of Productivity or Load Factors is never fully explained, so such announcements are deliberately deceptive, as the average Renewable productivity only amounts to about 20% of its full Name Plate rating. So such promotional Renewable Energy announcements thus illogically assume that the wind blows all the time at productive speeds and that the sun shines overhead 24 hours/day and the seasons never change from a clear day in summer.
The Renewable Energy Foundation time series data for the UK 2002 – 2019
The Renewable Energy Foundation reports on Weather Dependent Renewables and Green energy in the UK. It has provided the most up to date information available at the end of 2019.
https://ref.org.uk/energy-data
Its time series data on UK Renewable Installations runs from 2002 up to date. This includes the Nameplate rating of installations and the annual Gigawatt Hour electrical output over the year for each generation technology. Graphic representations of those data as time series presentations show the progress of UK Weather Dependent Renewables.
According the Renewable Energy Foundation data, 2019 was a poorer year than previously for UK Weather Dependent Renewables productivity.
Productivity expressed as a percentage load factor, (actual power produced / nameplate value), is crucial to evaluating the true comparative value of the power produced. The progress since 2002 of installation and production of Weather Dependent Renewables in the UK is shown below.
The history of Productivity figures that have been achieved in the UK are shown below.
Overall, the UK Weather Dependent Renewables performance has generally just exceeded ~20% productivity level, but provided a poorer performance in 2019. Onshore Wind power, now substantially curtailed in the UK, has achieved productivity around ~23%. Offshore Wind power has been more variable but achieved a productivity figure of ~32% in 2019. The productivity of Solar Power in the UK is consistently at or below ~10% productivity level.
But of course the “trip” of an Offshore wind farm on a breezy summer afternoon contributed to the major UK power outage of 9/8/2019. An outage like that will be all the more severe and probably longer lasting one still foggy winter evening soon. Weather Dependent Renewables can not provide inherent inertia in the grid to overcome short term sudden variability nor to enable a “Black Start”, if needed.
The two graphs below show the progress of Renewable installations in the UK since 2002 noting:
the gross over commitment to Solar PV Power 2013-2016
a remarkable further cut back from the previous enthusiastic Renewables installations occurred in 2019, as it seems to be coming to be realised that they do not provide a truly viable answer to maintaining a consistent power supply.
the very large future cost commitments made in 2010 and 2017 particularly for Offshore Wind power. In 2017 this alone amounted a future cost of some 150£billion. Those future costs will be incurred just from the current UK Renewables installations. As pressure grows for further generation by nominally Renewables those future costs are bound to escalate.
Comparative Generation Costings
The table above gave a capital valuation of the current 2020 UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~62£billion with probable ongoing costs of ~260£billion. This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power stations and more than 11 times the cost of using Gas-firing for equivalent power generation.
The excess capital expenditures of Renewables range from ~21£billion to ~55£billion. The long-term excess expenditures range from 160£billion to 236£billion depending on the substituted Nuclear or Gas-fired technology respectively.
These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the UK population both via direct taxation supporting subsidies to Weather Dependent Renewables and added to UK utility bills by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on the UK electricity generation. That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorest in UK society. It leading to ever increasing “Energy Poverty”.
The following three tables show how differing existing Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs.
Onshore Wind power is the most competitive achieving close to cost parity with Nuclear power in capital spend but only being about 1.3 times as expensive long-term. Onshore wind power is only about 5 – 6 times more costly than Gas-firing.
Offshore wind power is the least cost-effective being ~2.6 – 4.4 times more costly than Nuclear but in the region of 13 – 18 times more costly than Gas-firing.
Solar PV is more cost effective than Offshore being 2-3 times more costly than Nuclear to install and 12 – 14 times more costly than Gas-firing.
They together are responsible for more than 75% of the excess costs of the UK Renewables fleet even though they are responsible for only ~55% of the Renewable power output produced. Together wastage in the capital cost from Offshore wind and Solar power amounts to some 42£billion with a long-term anticipated cost of ~200billion.
The Comparative Cost Model for Electricity Generation Technologies
The comparative costings are derived from US EIA data updated in 2020.
The values used in this model ignore the “EIA Technological optimism factor” above, which would adversely affect the comparative costs of Offshore wind, (by about 9£billion/Gigawatt: long-term) and to a much less extent Nuclear power. These costs are summarised and translated into £billion in the table below, £1 ≅ US$1.2:
The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as £billion/Gigawatt. These basic data should realistically avoid the distorting effects of Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Renewable Energy, whereby it can be claimed that Renewables approximate to cost parity. It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables. These recent 2020 EIA updates fully account for any recent cost reductions or underbids for Renewable technology, particularly those for Solar panels.
The table above assumes that the purchasing power of £1 is equivalent to ~US$1.20. The service life allocated for Renewables used above may well be generous, particularly for Offshore Wind and Solar Photovoltaics. The production capability of all Renewable technologies have been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life.
Note that in addition that these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables. The results above only account for the cost comparisons for the actual electrical power generated accounting for the measured productivity capability of each generating technology.
The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from:
unreliability in terms of both intermittency and variability
poor timing of power generation, often unlikely to be coordinated with demand
long transmission lines incurring costly power losses and increased maintenance
additional infrastructure necessary for access
the costs of back up generation only used on occasions but wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless
any consideration of electrical storage using batteries, which would impose very significant additional costs, were long term, (several days), battery storage even economically feasible
unsynchronised generation with lack of inherent inertia.
inability to recover from a “black start”, when essential after failure.
In addition these cost analyses do not account for:
The “Carbon footprint” of Renewable technologies: they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture, installation and eventual demolition. When viewed in the round, all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels as feedstocks or fuels.
The Energy Return on Energy Invested, Renewables may well not produce as much Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation. They certainly do not provide the regular excess power sufficient to support the multiple needs of a developed society.
Conclusion
If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “saving the planet” from the output of the UK’s small level of CO2 emissions, (for electricity generation, ~25% of 1.1%, the UK 2018 portion of Man-made Global CO2 emissions), their actual cost, in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.
The annual UK CO2 emissions output is well surpassed just by the annual growth of CO2 emissions in China and the Developing world.
It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government mandated excess expenditures to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps preventing undetectable temperature increases by the end of the century, especially in a context where the Developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it’s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.
Reducing CO2 emissions as a means to control a “warming” climate seems even less relevant when the long-term global temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, as the coming end of our current warm and benign Holocene interglacial epoch approaches.
The context in Spring 2020
In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years, in Spring 2020 the world is faced with a different but VERY REAL economic emergency from the COVID-19 virus pandemic. That Emergency, with the world facing the immediate death of many citizens as well as global economic breakdown, should put the costly Government mandated attempts to control the future climate into stark perspective and show how irrelevant concerns over “Climate Change” truly are, when compared to the economic effects of this pandemic.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-18--Viral numerology: Coronavirus fades after 6 to 8 weeks due to magic or something

An Israeli Prof is claiming to be “ shocked ” to find that tough lockdown quarantines made no difference .
He claims the virus fades after 6 weeks in the “ exact same way ” everywhere – which it does if you wear a welding mask while looking at the data .
When asked why this extraordinary text-book-breaking shift happens he says “ I have no explanation ” but that doesn ’ t stop him concluding that hard quarantines are unnecessary .
When asked , he apparently suggested the exponential growth of viruses ends because of “ the climate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own life cycle ” .
( How does he think this works ?
Telepathy ? )
Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University , who also serves on the research and development advisory board for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries , plotted the rates of new coronavirus infections of the U.S. , U.K. , Sweden , Italy , Israel , Switzerland , France , Germany , and Spain .
The numbers told a shocking story : irrespective of whether the country quarantined like Israel , or went about business as usual like Sweden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same way .
In the exact , same , way .
His graphs show that all countries experienced seemingly identical coronavirus [ … ]

Virus follows fixed mysterious pattern
An Israeli Prof is claiming to be “shocked” to find that tough lockdown quarantines made no difference. He claims the virus fades after 6 weeks in the “exact same way” everywhere – which it does if you wear a welding mask while looking at the data. When asked why this extraordinary text-book-breaking shift happens he says “I have no explanation” but that doesn’t stop him concluding that hard quarantines are unnecessary.
When asked, he apparently suggested the exponential growth of viruses ends because of “the climate” or maybe “the virus has its own life cycle”. (How does he think this works? Telepathy?)
Israeli Professor Shows Virus Follows Fixed Pattern
Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University, who also serves on the research and development advisory board for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, plotted the rates of new coronavirus infections of the U.S., U.K., Sweden, Italy, Israel, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Spain.
The numbers told a shocking story: irrespective of whether the country quarantined like Israel, or went about business as usual like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way. In the exact, same, way. His graphs show that all countries experienced seemingly identical coronavirus […]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3ais0Hs
April 18, 2020 at 11:35AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--New geochemical tool reveals origin of Earth’s nitrogen: Novel analysis method may also be useful fo

New geochemical tool reveals origin of Earth’s nitrogen: Novel analysis method may also be useful for monitoring volcanic activity

As the video reminds us : Earth ’ s atmosphere is mostly ( 78 % ) nitrogen .
Plus about 21 % oxygen at sea level , and a few minor trace gases – one or two of which some people like to fixate on .
Researchers have used a new geochemical tool to shed light on the origin of nitrogen and other volatile elements on Earth , which may also prove useful as a way to monitor the activity of volcanoes , says ScienceDaily .
Their findings were published April 16 , 2020 , in the journal Nature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the atmosphere , and is the primary component of the air we breathe .
Nitrogen is also found in rocks , including those tucked deep within the planet ’ s interior .
Until now , it was difficult to distinguish between nitrogen sources coming from air and those coming from inside the Earth ’ s mantle when measuring gases from volcanoes .
“ We found that air contamination was masking the pristine ‘ source signature ’ of many volcanic gas samples , ” says WHOI geochemist Peter Barry , a coauthor of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t able to answer basic questions like : Is nitrogen left over from Earth ’ s formation or was it delivered to the planet later on ?
How is nitrogen from the atmosphere related to nitrogen coming out of volcanoes ?
Barry and lead author Jabrane Labidi of UCLA , now a researcher at Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris , worked in partnership with international geochemists to analyze volcanic gas samples from around the globe — including gases from Iceland and Yellowstone National Park — using a new method @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This method provided a unique way to identify molecules of nitrogen that come from air , which allowed the researchers to see the true gas compositions deep within Earth ’ s mantle .
This ultimately revealed evidence that nitrogen in the mantle has most likely been there since our planet initially formed .
“ Once air contamination is accounted for , we gained new and valuable insights into the origin of nitrogen and the evolution of our planet , ” Barry says .
While this new method helps scientists understand the origins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may also prove useful as a way of monitoring the activity of volcanoes .
This is because the composition of gases bellowing from volcanic centers change prior to eruptions .
It could be that the mix of mantle and air nitrogen could one day be used as a signal of eruptions .

As the video reminds us: Earth’s atmosphere is mostly (78%) nitrogen. Plus about 21% oxygen at sea level, and a few minor trace gases – one or two of which some people like to fixate on.
Researchers have used a new geochemical tool to shed light on the origin of nitrogen and other volatile elements on Earth, which may also prove useful as a way to monitor the activity of volcanoes, says ScienceDaily.
Their findings were published April 16, 2020, in the journal Nature.
Nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, and is the primary component of the air we breathe. Nitrogen is also found in rocks, including those tucked deep within the planet’s interior.
Until now, it was difficult to distinguish between nitrogen sources coming from air and those coming from inside the Earth’s mantle when measuring gases from volcanoes.
“We found that air contamination was masking the pristine ‘source signature’ of many volcanic gas samples,” says WHOI geochemist Peter Barry, a coauthor of the study.
Without that distinction, scientists weren’t able to answer basic questions like: Is nitrogen left over from Earth’s formation or was it delivered to the planet later on? How is nitrogen from the atmosphere related to nitrogen coming out of volcanoes?
Barry and lead author Jabrane Labidi of UCLA, now a researcher at Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, worked in partnership with international geochemists to analyze volcanic gas samples from around the globe — including gases from Iceland and Yellowstone National Park — using a new method of analyzing “clumped” nitrogen isotopes.
This method provided a unique way to identify molecules of nitrogen that come from air, which allowed the researchers to see the true gas compositions deep within Earth’s mantle. This ultimately revealed evidence that nitrogen in the mantle has most likely been there since our planet initially formed.
“Once air contamination is accounted for, we gained new and valuable insights into the origin of nitrogen and the evolution of our planet,” Barry says.
While this new method helps scientists understand the origins of volatile elements on Earth, it may also prove useful as a way of monitoring the activity of volcanoes. This is because the composition of gases bellowing from volcanic centers change prior to eruptions.
It could be that the mix of mantle and air nitrogen could one day be used as a signal of eruptions.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/2zdRgBL
April 19, 2020 at 06:24AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--COVID19 models – a lesson for those who trust climate scientists-Joe D’Aleo

COVID19 models – a lesson for those who trust climate scientists The models used to estimate U.S. deaths from COVID19 had projections that ranged from over 2 million a few weeks back to 100,000-240,000 a week ago down to 60,000 this week .
Hopefully the projections and reality will converge on an even lower number .
The media seemed perplexed about the large changes in the models and questioned their concept and value .
Welcome to the world of modeling ( see this comparison ) .
We in the weather business use models as a tool and they present special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models to choose from which run 2 to 4 times a day or even on a smaller scale hourly .
Operational model forecasts go out to as far 16 days into the future .
The models are subject to large errors especially in the latter periods when storms are coming inland from data sparse regions like the Pacific .
We have a favorite phrase – garbage in , garbage out .
The climate model story is even worse .
The climate models overstate the warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest warming in the tropical high atmosphere ( called the Tropical Hot Spot ) where air in the mean rises due to convergence of air from both hemispheres .
But the models warming results mostly from the release of heat from condensation of water vapor ( 95 % of the greenhouse effect ) .
CO2 is a trace gas , just 0.04 % of the atmosphere by volume .
See no warming trend in the upper atmosphere since 1979 where models predict it .
The lack of warming also holds for the tropical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 160E to 80W .
HOW THEY DEAL WITH LACK OF REAL DATA AT GROUND LEVEL The climate cabal portray the output from their models as gospel , and the believers confuse the model projections with measured data .
The data centers make unsubstantiated claims that a given month or year is the warmest back to the beginning of the record ( 1880 or even 1850 ) often by the tiniest of margins ( 0.05C for example ) .
But the data is just not there to make those claims .
71 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data before the satellite data became available 40 years ago , ocean data was reliant on ships which travelled along specific routes mainly in the northern hemisphere near the land .
A large percentage of land surface was erratically covered with observing sites and the data too often spare and intermittent .
To create an apparent agreement with their sacred models , the data centers manipulated real data or even generated with their models data for 95 % of the planet that had poor coverage before the satellite era .
MIT ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phoney claims that most years are the warmest ever since the 1850s of 1880s .
“ The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago .
We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century , all we know is some limited regional climate changes , such as in Europe , North America and parts of Asia.
” The world ’ s greatest scientists in the 1970s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global trends by using land temperatures where available in the Northern Hemisphere .
It showed a 2F warming from 1880s to around 1940 and then a cooling that by around 1970s cut that by more than half .
Further cooling until the late 19870s virtually eliminated the rest .
These early measurements were erased when models and global land ( and ocean ) data was ‘ created ’ in the following decades .
The models cooled the early data and enhanced the warming to create an apparent steady warming during the eras @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion is that there is man made global warming but the men are in NOAA , NASA and Hadley .
By the way , the ocean data coverage and accuracy did not really become reliable until the implementation of the ARGO buoys in 2000 designed to accurately measure temperatures and ocean heat content .
Like the satellite used to measure sea level changes ( which showed no changes – until artificial adjustments were made ) , the early results were disappointing – showing no warming .
The ARGO data supported the inconvenient near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started in the late 1990s .
Eventually in desperation ahead of the Paris Accord , they made this go away by adjusting the buoy data to match to inferior ship data .
The models are tuned to manipulated ( fraudulent ) data .
In addition to what we have shown above , this can be seen when you examine all the extremes of weather that these models and the theories predict .
See here how each of the claims have failed .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
Reposted from ICECAP:
COVID19 models – a lesson for those who trust climate scientists
The models used to estimate U.S. deaths from COVID19 had projections that ranged from over 2 million a few weeks back to 100,000-240,000 a week ago down to 60,000 this week. Hopefully the projections and reality will converge on an even lower number.
The media seemed perplexed about the large changes in the models and questioned their concept and value. Welcome to the world of modeling (see this comparison).
We in the weather business use models as a tool and they present special challenges. We have a plethora of models to choose from which run 2 to 4 times a day or even on a smaller scale hourly. Operational model forecasts go out to as far 16 days into the future. The models are subject to large errors especially in the latter periods when storms are coming inland from data sparse regions like the Pacific. We have a favorite phrase – garbage in, garbage out.
The climate model story is even worse. The climate models overstate the warming from greenhouse gases by a factor of two or more.
Enlarged
Climate model forecasts versus the satellite and balloon observations
The models projected the greatest warming in the tropical high atmosphere (called the Tropical Hot Spot) where air in the mean rises due to convergence of air from both hemispheres. But the models warming results mostly from the release of heat from condensation of water vapor (95% of the greenhouse effect). CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume.
See no warming trend in the upper atmosphere since 1979 where models predict it.
Enlarged
The lack of warming also holds for the tropical Pacific ocean down to 300 meters depth from 160E to 80W.
Enlarged
HOW THEY DEAL WITH LACK OF REAL DATA AT GROUND LEVEL
The climate cabal portray the output from their models as gospel, and the believers confuse the model projections with measured data. The data centers make unsubstantiated claims that a given month or year is the warmest back to the beginning of the record (1880 or even 1850) often by the tiniest of margins (0.05C for example).
But the data is just not there to make those claims.
71% of the earth is oceans, and data before the satellite data became available 40 years ago, ocean data was reliant on ships which travelled along specific routes mainly in the northern hemisphere near the land.
A large percentage of land surface was erratically covered with observing sites and the data too often spare and intermittent.
To create an apparent agreement with their sacred models, the data centers manipulated real data or even generated with their models data for 95% of the planet that had poor coverage before the satellite era.
MIT’s climate scientist Dr. Mototaka here exposed the phoney claims that most years are the warmest ever since the 1850s of 1880s.
“The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
The world’s greatest scientists in the 1970s knew that and created the first view of global trends by using land temperatures where available in the Northern Hemisphere. It showed a 2F warming from 1880s to around 1940 and then a cooling that by around 1970s cut that by more than half. Further cooling until the late 19870s virtually eliminated the rest.
Enlarged
These early measurements were erased when models and global land (and ocean) data was ‘created’ in the following decades. The models cooled the early data and enhanced the warming to create an apparent steady warming during the eras when fossil fuel use increased. Our conclusion is that there is man made global warming but the men are in NOAA, NASA and Hadley.
Enlarged
By the way, the ocean data coverage and accuracy did not really become reliable until the implementation of the ARGO buoys in 2000 designed to accurately measure temperatures and ocean heat content. Like the satellite used to measure sea level changes (which showed no changes – until artificial adjustments were made), the early results were disappointing – showing no warming. The ARGO data supported the inconvenient near two decade pause in the warming that started in the late 1990s.
Enlarged
Eventually in desperation ahead of the Paris Accord, they made this go away by adjusting the buoy data to match to inferior ship data.
Enlarged
The models are tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. In addition to what we have shown above, this can be seen when you examine all the extremes of weather that these models and the theories predict. See here how each of the claims have failed.
Read the full post here.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2XMoEtv
April 19, 2020 at 04:45AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--Climate Campaigner & Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Faces Lifetime Ban From Liberal Party

A former Turnbull government adviser from the conservative bloc of the state executive has asked for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on Turnbull ’ s expulsion within weeks .
Could the dysfunctional relationship between Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and the Liberal Party finally be set for a hostile divorce ?
An email calling for Turnbull to be expelled from the party and slapped with a lifetime ban was sent to NSW Liberal state executive members on Sunday afternoon .
If the motion is successful , Strewth understands this would be the first time anyone has been chastised with a lifetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 29th prime minister .
Christian Ellis — a former Turnbull government adviser from the conservative bloc of the state executive — has asked for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on Turnbull ’ s expulsion within weeks .
Ellis was scathing in his email rebuke , focusing on the former Liberal leader ’ s scorched-earth book A Bigger Picture , published on Monday .
“ Malcolm Turnbull has shown in the last few weeks how he is not a servant of the Liberal Party , but himself , ” Ellis wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immediate expulsion of Malcolm Turnbull from the Liberal Party .
On top of this , as he may no longer be a member , I will move for a lifetime ban to be imposed on him.
” “ Whilst productive commentary from former leaders ought to be encouraged , to use this time to talk about oneself and attack Ministers of the Government is not on.
” “ This is not a motion of vengeance or spite .
His membership needs to be terminated because if he continues to keep attacking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in anyway , he damages the party brand.
” The post Climate Campaigner & Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Faces Lifetime Ban From Liberal Party appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

A former Turnbull government adviser from the conservative bloc of the state executive has asked for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on Turnbull’s expulsion within weeks.
Australia’s former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull faces expulsion from the Liberal Party
Could the dysfunctional relationship between Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and the Liberal Party finally be set for a hostile divorce?
An email calling for Turnbull to be expelled from the party and slapped with a lifetime ban was sent to NSW Liberal state executive members on Sunday afternoon. If the motion is successful, Strewth understands this would be the first time anyone has been chastised with a lifetime Liberal membership ban, let alone Australian’s 29th prime minister.
Christian Ellis — a former Turnbull government adviser from the conservative bloc of the state executive — has asked for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on Turnbull’s expulsion within weeks.
Ellis was scathing in his email rebuke, focusing on the former Liberal leader’s scorched-earth book A Bigger Picture, published on Monday.
“Malcolm Turnbull has shown in the last few weeks how he is not a servant of the Liberal Party, but himself,” Ellis wrote.
“I intend to move for the immediate expulsion of Malcolm Turnbull from the Liberal Party. On top of this, as he may no longer be a member, I will move for a lifetime ban to be imposed on him.”
“Whilst productive commentary from former leaders ought to be encouraged, to use this time to talk about oneself and attack Ministers of the Government is not on.”
“This is not a motion of vengeance or spite. His membership needs to be terminated because if he continues to keep attacking the party as a member, or connected in anyway, he damages the party brand.”
The post Climate Campaigner & Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Faces Lifetime Ban From Liberal Party appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2ViymlC
April 19, 2020 at 04:29AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--Seeing what one expects

Seeing what one expects

This morning I awoke to a mid-April morning temperature of -11F .
The 1981 to 2010 climate normals indicate our average daily minimum temperature per this date as about 23F , and the standard deviation as 8F .
Thus , our morning low temperature is a 4-sigma event .
Surely something to evoke comment .
Yet , it did not so far as I know .
This caused me to ponder something I observed two months ago .
Ten minutes from my home , in the mountains to my east , is great nordic skiing .
It was at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Norwegian olympics .
There was unusually good snow this winter , and people came from near and far to enjoy it .
What I heard often in conversation in the parking lot in February was that we were having an “ unusually warm ” winter .
I thought not .
I have lived in this area , off and on , for 40 years , and I thought this winter was pretty typical , even possibly slightly cool .
Combining data from Mesowest and from the NCEI office of NOAA , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This figure is very revealing not only about what the present winter is like , but what typical winters around here are like .
There is the “ normal ” winter , the smooth curves of weather averaged over 30 years time ; and there is the current winter daily averages shown in bold orange variations .
In the current winter , which I view as typical , average temperature rises up to near the maximum daily climate normal temperature for a time .
This occurs principally in the southerly flow of warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cold front .
After passage of the front there are days of cold air to contend with .
Rarely is the daily average temperature at or near the climate normal .
There is typical winter , and there is climate normal ; rarely do they meet .
[ 1 ] This year the first two weeks of December showed days of variable temperature but the average remained between the climate normal average , and the climate normal maximum .
One might call it warm .
Suddenly the weather became more extreme with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate normal to well below .
Out of the ordinary ?
No , typical ; as the extremes still never exceeded one standard deviation above or below .
Once averaged it seems like a couple of weeks of typical winter storminess ; but possibly someone predisposed to “ global warming ” would have noticed and remembered the warmer days , but not so much the others .
In January the weather varied within a smaller range , but stayed largely within the band between the average climate normal and the average maximum normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stating this to have been a milder than normal January .
February starts warm then becomes cold to the extent of 2-sigma below the average climate minimum , then proceeds with temperature extremes , again with the passage of successive storms , but generally seems to be a few degrees below the average climate normal .
It hardly seems correct to label it a warm winter as the skiers were doing — especially while sweaty at the end of their circuit .
February , from the data , looks to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And even if viewing the graph of temperature gave them some doubt about their original thoughts , some could now argue with me that the climate normals from 1981 to 2010 are themselves warm because of climate change , thus providing hope of validating their original claim .
Many people rightly say that data should settle arguments , but real data , filled as it is with noise , doesn ’ t often serve this purpose .
Real data often contains enough variation that people operating with confirmation bias can find in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preconception .
Unless the signal is very obvious , real data can actually fuel disputes .
Most of the skiers around here are university educated people who are more exposed to the current climate wisdom and probably more prone to a warm bias as a result .
I observe this in their conversations about every wintertime observation they make — from how little snow they recall having moved from their driveway , to how often we have dropped below -20F this season , or to how warm they felt after their skiing jaunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmer than normal winter in those select warm days during February , but seem to neglect the numerous very cold days .
Irving Langmuir noted that there is a pathological side to science where bias can recruit even objective measurements to its side .
It works especially well when the data are noisy and the signal barely resolvable .
[ 2 ] The ESP experiments done by Joseph Rhine were terribly biased , but so influential was he and his enormous collection of observations , that paranormal science became respectable during the 1950s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were once convinced about the Palmdale bulge ; but it too vanished .
Presently we can see the same workings of bias in our debates over climate change , imagined droughts , or COVID19 .
[ 3 ] Topics change , reason seems as frail as ever .
Notes : [ 1 ] -Thus , Earl Butz , one time Secretary of Agriculture , said that in 50 years of Minnesota farming , he had seen two normal winters .
[ 2 ] -Irving Langmuir and pathological science .
Lectures presented at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are many copies and synopses of this lecture series on the internet , check Columbia and Princeton Universities , but its ramifications are so universal that it has even invaded management .
See for example , Pathological Science , Research Technology Management , Vol .
32 , No .
5 ( September-October 1989 ) , pp .
11-17 [ 3 ] -Neil Ferguson , the Imperial College epidemiologist , who produced the scare projections now cited as evidence for tight , and tightening , social isolation , also made the following observation “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively little impact ( results not shown ) because the contact-time at such events is relatively small compared to the time spent at home , in schools or workplaces and in other community locations such as bars and restaurants….
” Our officials are happy to cite selected evidence for their responses , but fail to notice advice arguing against some of them .

By Kevin Kilty
This morning I awoke to a mid-April morning temperature of -11F. The 1981 to 2010 climate normals indicate our average daily minimum temperature per this date as about 23F, and the standard deviation as 8F. Thus, our morning low temperature is a 4-sigma event. Surely something to evoke comment. Yet, it did not so far as I know.
This caused me to ponder something I observed two months ago. Ten minutes from my home, in the mountains to my east, is great nordic skiing. It was at one time home to what we call, the Norwegian olympics. There was unusually good snow this winter, and people came from near and far to enjoy it. What I heard often in conversation in the parking lot in February was that we were having an “unusually warm” winter. I thought not. I have lived in this area, off and on, for 40 years, and I thought this winter was pretty typical, even possibly slightly cool.
What the observations show
Combining data from Mesowest and from the NCEI office of NOAA, I produced Figure 1 for our inspection.
This figure is very revealing not only about what the present winter is like, but what typical winters around here are like. There is the “normal” winter, the smooth curves of weather averaged over 30 years time; and there is the current winter daily averages shown in bold orange variations.
In the current winter, which I view as typical, average temperature rises up to near the maximum daily climate normal temperature for a time. This occurs principally in the southerly flow of warm air a few days in advance of a cold front. After passage of the front there are days of cold air to contend with. Rarely is the daily average temperature at or near the climate normal. There is typical winter, and there is climate normal; rarely do they meet.[1]
This year the first two weeks of December showed days of variable temperature but the average remained between the climate normal average, and the climate normal maximum. One might call it warm. Suddenly the weather became more extreme with daily averages rising well above the maximum climate normal to well below. Out of the ordinary? No, typical; as the extremes still never exceeded one standard deviation above or below. Once averaged it seems like a couple of weeks of typical winter storminess; but possibly someone predisposed to “global warming” would have noticed and remembered the warmer days, but not so much the others.
In January the weather varied within a smaller range, but stayed largely within the band between the average climate normal and the average maximum normal. One would have been absolutely correct in stating this to have been a milder than normal January. February starts warm then becomes cold to the extent of 2-sigma below the average climate minimum, then proceeds with temperature extremes, again with the passage of successive storms, but generally seems to be a few degrees below the average climate normal. It hardly seems correct to label it a warm winter as the skiers were doing — especially while sweaty at the end of their circuit. February, from the data, looks to have been the coldest month of our winter season.
And even if viewing the graph of temperature gave them some doubt about their original thoughts, some could now argue with me that the climate normals from 1981 to 2010 are themselves warm because of climate change, thus providing hope of validating their original claim.
Data should settle arguments
Many people rightly say that data should settle arguments, but real data, filled as it is with noise, doesn’t often serve this purpose. Real data often contains enough variation that people operating with confirmation bias can find in it what they need to maintain a preconception. Unless the signal is very obvious, real data can actually fuel disputes.
Most of the skiers around here are university educated people who are more exposed to the current climate wisdom and probably more prone to a warm bias as a result. I observe this in their conversations about every wintertime observation they make — from how little snow they recall having moved from their driveway, to how often we have dropped below -20F this season, or to how warm they felt after their skiing jaunt. Thus, they can see a warmer than normal winter in those select warm days during February, but seem to neglect the numerous very cold days.
Irving Langmuir noted that there is a pathological side to science where bias can recruit even objective measurements to its side. It works especially well when the data are noisy and the signal barely resolvable.[2] The ESP experiments done by Joseph Rhine were terribly biased, but so influential was he and his enormous collection of observations, that paranormal science became respectable during the 1950s. It is no longer. Many were once convinced about the Palmdale bulge; but it too vanished. Presently we can see the same workings of bias in our debates over climate change, imagined droughts, or COVID19.[3] Topics change, reason seems as frail as ever.
Notes: [1]-Thus, Earl Butz, one time Secretary of Agriculture, said that in 50 years of Minnesota farming, he had seen two normal winters.
[2]-Irving Langmuir and pathological science. Lectures presented at the General Electric company in 1953. There are many copies and synopses of this lecture series on the internet, check Columbia and Princeton Universities, but its ramifications are so universal that it has even invaded management. See for example, Pathological Science, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32, No. 5 (September-October 1989), pp. 11-17
[3]-Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist, who produced the scare projections now cited as evidence for tight, and tightening, social isolation, also made the following observation
“Stopping mass gatherings is predicted to have relatively little impact (results not shown) because the contact-time at such events is relatively small compared to the time spent at home, in schools or workplaces and in other community locations such as bars and restaurants….”
Our officials are happy to cite selected evidence for their responses, but fail to notice advice arguing against some of them.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--Climate Cult Hijacks COVID-19 Crisis By Demanding More Subsidies For Wind & Solar

It didn ’ t take them long .
The climate cult has hijacked the COVID-19 crisis , demanding more subsidies @ @ @ @ @ Apparently , more windmills and solar panels will operate like some kind of collective vaccine @ @ @ @ @ mind that the worst affected COVID-19 victims need to be admitted to ICUs and hooked @ @ @ @ @

It didn’t take them long. The climate cult has hijacked the COVID-19 crisis, demanding more subsidies for wind and solar. Apparently, more windmills and solar panels will operate like some kind of collective vaccine against the coronavirus. Never mind that the worst affected COVID-19 victims need to be admitted to ICUs and hooked up to […]
Read more
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/3bosjS8
April 19, 2020 at 02:30AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-19--Claim: “Bath Sponge” Metal Organic Material Makes Climate Friendly Hydrogen Automobiles Viable

The BBC reports a new highly porous metal organic sponge can hold large volumes of hydrogen at low pressure .
But there are still a few issues to solve , like where to get all the hydrogen .
A new material developed , by scientists could give a significant boost to a new generation of hydrogen-powered cars .
However , hydrogen vehicles suffer from some drawbacks .
The gas is extremely light – In normal atmospheric pressure , to carry 1kg of hydrogen which might power your car for over 100km , you ’ d need a tank capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around this problem , the gas is stored at high pressure , around 700 bar , so cars can carry 4-5kg of the gas and travel up to 500km before refilling .
Now researchers believe they have developed an alternative method that would allow the storage of high volumes of hydrogen under much lower pressure .
The product , with the glamorous name of NU-1501 , has been built from organic molecules and metal ions which self-assemble to form highly crystalline , porous frameworks .
“ It ’ s like a bath sponge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Prof Omar Farha , from Northwestern University in the US who led the research .
“ With a sponge , if you spill water and you wipe it , in order to reuse the sponge , you squeeze it .
“ With this material we use the same thing – we use pressure to store and release these gas molecules.
” The abstract of the study ; Balancing volumetric and gravimetric uptake in highly porous materials for clean energy A huge challenge facing scientists is the development of adsorbent materials that exhibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and volumetric surface areas for the onboard storage of hydrogen and methane gas—alternatives to conventional fossil fuels .
Here we report the simulation-motivated synthesis of ultraporous metal–organic frameworks ( MOFs ) based on metal trinuclear clusters , namely , NU-1501-M ( M = Al or Fe ) .
Relative to other ultraporous MOFs , NU-1501-Al exhibits concurrently a high gravimetric Brunauer−Emmett−Teller ( BET ) area of 7310 m2 g−1 and a volumetric BET area of 2060 m2cm−3 while satisfying the four BET consistency criteria .
The high porosity and surface area of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performances for hydrogen and methane : NU-1501-Al surpasses the gravimetric methane storage U.S. Department of Energy target ( 0.5 g g−1 ) with an uptake of 0.66 g g−1 [ 262 cm3 ( standard temperature and pressure , STP ) cm−3 ] at 100 bar/270 K and a 5- to 100-bar working capacity of 0.60 g g−1 [ 238 cm3 ( STP ) cm−3 ] at 270 K ; it also shows one of the best deliverable hydrogen capacities ( 14.0 weight % , 46.2 g liter−1 ) under a combined temperature and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 160 K/5 bar ) .
I don ’ t see the hydrogen economy happening , just because someone invented a new storage material .
Hydrogen has huge problems .
For starters , there is no economically viable path to producing affordable hydrogen from renewables .
The dominant industrial process for producing hydrogen is steam reforming , which requires vast quantities of fossil fuel .
Feedstock , usually methane , is heated with steam at such an extreme pressure the water actually combines with the methane ; the carbon in the methane grabs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and carbon monoxide .
The process is strongly endothermic , so even more fossil fuel is required to heat the reaction chamber .
There are lots of academics like Australia ’ s Chief Scientist , who are all excited about the imaginary hydrogen economy of the future , but none of them can explain exactly how to build an economically viable hydrogen economy .
Their plan seems to be to throw vast sums of government money at the problem and wait for the magic to happen .
A variation on the theme is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide produced by the reaction .
The idea is to strip the carbon out of the fossil fuel before it reaches the end user .
Although this process is cheaper than absurd ideas involving renewables , it would still dramatically increase the cost of energy , compared to simply burning the unprocessed natural gas directly .
There is also a zero carbon nuclear powered hydrogen production process , but greens mostly like to pretend nuclear power doesn ’ t exist .
Even if the renewable production cost problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas to keep in confined spaces .
Large quantities of hydrogen would be far more hazardous in a home environment than natural gas , heating oil or gasoline .
If hydrogen use becomes widespread , it seems likely a lot of people would be injured or killed in hydrogen storage accidents .

Last time someone tried to create a Hydrogen economy – the Hindenburg Hydrogen Explosion Disaster – By Gus Pasquerella – http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/images/1213d.gif, Public Domain, https://ift.tt/2sGWD9B
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The BBC reports a new highly porous metal organic sponge can hold large volumes of hydrogen at low pressure. But there are still a few issues to solve, like where to get all the hydrogen.
Climate change: ‘Bath sponge’ breakthrough could boost cleaner cars By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
18 April 2020 A new material developed, by scientists could give a significant boost to a new generation of hydrogen-powered cars. … However, hydrogen vehicles suffer from some drawbacks. The gas is extremely light – In normal atmospheric pressure, to carry 1kg of hydrogen which might power your car for over 100km, you’d need a tank capable of holding around 11,000 litres. To get around this problem, the gas is stored at high pressure, around 700 bar, so cars can carry 4-5kg of the gas and travel up to 500km before refilling. … Now researchers believe they have developed an alternative method that would allow the storage of high volumes of hydrogen under much lower pressure. … The product, with the glamorous name of NU-1501, has been built from organic molecules and metal ions which self-assemble to form highly crystalline, porous frameworks. “It’s like a bath sponge but with very ordered cavities,” said Prof Omar Farha, from Northwestern University in the US who led the research. “With a sponge, if you spill water and you wipe it, in order to reuse the sponge, you squeeze it. “With this material we use the same thing – we use pressure to store and release these gas molecules.” … Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52328786
The abstract of the study;
Balancing volumetric and gravimetric uptake in highly porous materials for clean energy Zhijie Chen1,*, Penghao Li1,*, Ryther Anderson2,*, Xingjie Wang1, Xuan Zhang1, Lee Robison1, Louis R. Redfern1, Shinya Moribe1,3, Timur Islamoglu1, Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón2, Taner Yildirim4, J. Fraser Stoddart1,5,6, Omar K. Farha1,7,† A huge challenge facing scientists is the development of adsorbent materials that exhibit ultrahigh porosity but maintain balance between gravimetric and volumetric surface areas for the onboard storage of hydrogen and methane gas—alternatives to conventional fossil fuels. Here we report the simulation-motivated synthesis of ultraporous metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) based on metal trinuclear clusters, namely, NU-1501-M (M = Al or Fe). Relative to other ultraporous MOFs, NU-1501-Al exhibits concurrently a high gravimetric Brunauer−Emmett−Teller (BET) area of 7310 m2 g−1 and a volumetric BET area of 2060 m2cm−3 while satisfying the four BET consistency criteria. The high porosity and surface area of this MOF yielded impressive gravimetric and volumetric storage performances for hydrogen and methane: NU-1501-Al surpasses the gravimetric methane storage U.S. Department of Energy target (0.5 g g−1) with an uptake of 0.66 g g−1 [262 cm3 (standard temperature and pressure, STP) cm−3] at 100 bar/270 K and a 5- to 100-bar working capacity of 0.60 g g−1 [238 cm3 (STP) cm−3] at 270 K; it also shows one of the best deliverable hydrogen capacities (14.0 weight %, 46.2 g liter−1) under a combined temperature and pressure swing (77 K/100 bar → 160 K/5 bar). Read more: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/297
I don’t see the hydrogen economy happening, just because someone invented a new storage material.
Hydrogen has huge problems. For starters, there is no economically viable path to producing affordable hydrogen from renewables.
The dominant industrial process for producing hydrogen is steam reforming, which requires vast quantities of fossil fuel. Feedstock, usually methane, is heated with steam at such an extreme pressure the water actually combines with the methane; the carbon in the methane grabs the oxygen from the water, producing hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The process is strongly endothermic, so even more fossil fuel is required to heat the reaction chamber.
Renewables can’t even beat this absurdly wasteful process.
There are lots of academics like Australia’s Chief Scientist, who are all excited about the imaginary hydrogen economy of the future, but none of them can explain exactly how to build an economically viable hydrogen economy. Their plan seems to be to throw vast sums of government money at the problem and wait for the magic to happen.
A variation on the theme is to use steam reforming, but sequester the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide produced by the reaction. The idea is to strip the carbon out of the fossil fuel before it reaches the end user. Although this process is cheaper than absurd ideas involving renewables, it would still dramatically increase the cost of energy, compared to simply burning the unprocessed natural gas directly.
There is also a zero carbon nuclear powered hydrogen production process, but greens mostly like to pretend nuclear power doesn’t exist.
Even if the renewable production cost problems are solved, hydrogen is a terrible gas to keep in confined spaces. Large quantities of hydrogen would be far more hazardous in a home environment than natural gas, heating oil or gasoline. If hydrogen use becomes widespread, it seems likely a lot of people would be injured or killed in hydrogen storage accidents.