|
|
||||
|
Finally, 15 years and a trillion dollars too late, George Monbiot says what skeptics have been saying all along. Nearly every single carbon reduction scheme is a useless make-work machination that creates the illusion that the government is doing something. He calls it “perceptionware”. A new paper was released in Science pointing out that in the last 25 years, barely 4% of climate policies in 41 countries have made any real difference. And by “real difference” we mean reducing a useful fertilizer, so it’s a good thing that 96% of the ploys failed, but a tragedy that a thousand billion dollars was stolen from decent people. In any case, finally Monbiot sees the tip of the iceberg of grift and graft, but doesn’t realize his own role in it, doesn’t realize the same failures of journalists like him also failed the science world where 96% of papers have achieved nothing they set out to do as well — like predicting the climate. Climate science has been spinning its wheels, creating perceptionware and failing to figure out the climate for fifty years, but George hasn’t noticed. Monbiot hasn’t even taken the obvious leap: Where were the Greens, the people who supposedly were the smart ones who cared the most? Most of these carbon reduction failures were obvious to anyone who owned a calculator. Could it be George, that the Greens were the dumb ones wrapped up in their own perceptionware game, pretending to care about CO2 to impress their friends at dinner parties but not actually giving a damn? Or worse, could it be that some Greens were bought off by industries and foreign countries that profit from the carbon grift? Who stood up for the poor, the workers, and the taxpayers who were being shafted — only the skeptics.
Monbiot zeroes in on the endless fantasia that is the quest for airline biofuel:
Now he worries the poor are starving as we burn their food, and chop down forests so we can fly to Bali:
George still doesn’t realize the root of the problem is Big Government itself. In the crazy biofuel market, it was the government that “picked the winner” and decided we should burn food to save the world, not the free market. Who could have guessed that convenient high energy plant matter would also be the same stuff people wanted to eat?
The government funded monopoly in science created a fake crisis that parasites could feed off, and he is surprised that parasites turned up to dinner. Where were all our expert climate scientists, George, while 25 years of money and time was wasted? Did they or did they not want to save the world, or were they too stupid, or too scared to say the obvious? REFERENCEStechemesser et al (2024) Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades, Science, 22 Aug 2024, Vol 385, Issue 6711,pp. 884-892, DOI: 10.1126/science.adl6547
September 13th, 2024 | Tags: Biofuel, Guardian (The), Media bias, Monbiot (George) | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post | |
Cold is the CatastropheA hotter world might not be so horrible. Back in the early Holocene, 10,000 years ago, rivers flowed in the middle of the Sahara desert, and they were filled with fish. The photo above is what remains of Takarkori Lake today. If only climate change could bring back the fish? While we were distracted in 2020, researchers published a paper about an trove of bones and body parts they had dug out of a cave in Southwest Libya, which is roughly the middle of the Sahara today. Surprisingly they found 17,551 bones, and even more surprisingly, 80% of them were from fish. The people who dined there were catching tilapia and clariid catfish, and sometimes the odd mud turtle, mollusc and a crocodile or two. The lake (pictured above) is about 6 kilometers from the cave (below), and all the bones appear to be human refuse. It’s kind of the ultimate archaeological FOGO dump. Somehow, this restaurant that stayed open for 6,000 years left behind layer after layer of undisturbed dining history. Gradually, over thousands of years the diners ate less fish, and more beef, goat and mutton. Amazingly, 17,000 bits of bone and bits were found in an area of just 150 meters square. Somehow, against the odds, the researchers were able to identify every single fish bone. It seems astonishing, except the odds were 50:50 that each bone was either a Tilapia or a Clariid catfish. The residents may have been a bit tired of eating the same two fish. While the rivers and wetlands may have had a lot of fish, there wasn’t much variety.  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228588 The authors, Wim van Neer et al, speculate that the fish probably spread to these lakes via massive flooding events that washed them over the land. (Imagine how big those floods would have to be?) They wonder if the odd bird might have dropped some fish eggs, but don’t think it is as likely. Apparently sometimes even storms can pick up fish and fling them far away. If humans ever did control the climate and fix it in its current state, they would stop life returning to the desert and call it a “win” for the environment. Crazy eh? During this hot Holocene era, there were many other rivers across the Sahara that don’t flow there today. The lakes near Takarkori dried up during the sudden shocking cold snap 8,200 years ago, but came back after a few centuries. (Just more climate change!) Sometime around 5,500 years ago they dried up for good (or bad, if you were a nomadic herder). One river nearby managed to keep flowing until Roman times, about 2,000 years ago.
 Map of Saharan rivers and water systems of the Holocene. Fig 14. Extant occurrence of selected aquatic species (fish, crocodile, and turtle) in North Africa waterways.
The remnants at the cave cover an era 6,000 years longIt is somewhat sobering to be reminded of just how many generations have come and gone, and how different their lives must have been. What would they think if they saw the barren desert now? The first humans to live in the cave arrived about 10,000 years ago. Permanent settlements appeared around 8,300 years ago with dairy cattle arriving 800 years later. By 6,000 years ago the site was used for brief visits by herders of goats and sheep during the winter. From the paper:
The current Sahara desertJust to remind us of how incredibly vast it is:
The press release: Fish in the Sahara? Yes, in the early HoloceneScienceDaily, February 2020 Catfish and tilapia make up many of the animal remains uncovered in the Saharan environment of the Takarkori rock shelter in southwestern Libya, according to a study published February 19, 2020 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Wim Van Neer from the the Natural History Museum in Belgium, Belgium and Savino di Lernia, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, and colleagues. Today, the Saharan Tadrart Acacus mountains are windy, hot, and hyperarid; however, the fossil record shows that for much of the early and middle Holocene (10,200 to 4650 years BP), this region was humid and rich in water as well as life, with evidence of multiple human settlements and diverse fauna. Keep reading → September 12th, 2024 | Tags: Desert, Evidence, Fish, Holocene, Sahara | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Sorry. Temporal rift, fixed. But not explained.  Image by Erik Nikolai Halsteinrud from Pixabay By Jo Nova The silence is deafeningMatt Ridley wrote a whole book about the Covid lab leak, and now marvels that what was once an unthinkable conspiracy is now quietly accepted by two thirds of the population, but still exists under a cone of silence. The Wuhan Lab Leak was “worse than a thousand Bhopals” he points out, but the Royal Society said it wasn’t a suitable topic for discussion. It’s as if the deaths of millions, the economic chaos and the threat of bioweapons is a bore. The World Health Organization never mentions it. The Academy of Medical Sciences said it was too controversial. Ridley was invited to debate the issue but no one would take the other side. He was invited to write a paper for a prestigious journal with a professor at Oxford. After they wrote a paper with hundreds of references, the editors rejected it out of hand, telling him that there was no evidence of people doing gain-of-function experiments in Wuhan, even though the Institute of Virology has published papers for six years detailing how they did exactly that. Ridley was invited to debate at another forum, and after much searching, and payments of more than $10,000, finally one virologist was willing to argue it was not a lab leak. Mysteriously most virologists seem to hope the biggest issue of their specialty career will just go away, quietly. There is now very little doubt that Covid leaked from a labBy Matt Ridley, Spiked …two-thirds of Americans believe the virus originated in a lab in China – yet most senior scientists seem to be sublimely unbothered by the fact that the public holds this view. They show little or no interest in getting out there and persuading people to change their minds. Instead, they just hope the whole topic fades into history. China has a database of 22,000 virus samples on it, and they won’t share it, but Western virologists and politicians don’t seem to want to see it. A thousand PhD-theses sit there undiscovered and no one cares. Have we sold our souls, our universities, our health, for cheap fridges and trade deals?If the lab leak had occurred in any other country, we might be more interested. As Matt Ridley explains: A former president of the Royal Society told me he hopes we never find out what happened, lest it annoy the Chinese. Would he have said the same about Bhopal, I wondered, or a plane crash? Why is this topic taboo? Scientists in the West have become addicted to collaboration with China. They get students and money from China. Ten British universities rely on Chinese students for more than a quarter of their income. Scientific journals get rich on Chinese publication fees. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet and recipient of a Friendship Award from the Chinese government, went on Chinese television early in the pandemic to say: ‘I think we have a great deal to thank China for, about the way that it handled the outbreak.’ As bad as that corruption of science is, the real problem is much bigger. Ridley doesn’t mention it, but Australians know all too well why no one wants to ask for an inquiry. The second biggest economy in the world plays nasty — it’s not just about Chinese students at university, or journal sales — our whole economy is at risk. Media houses want access to 1.3 billion customers. Financial houses do too. Big Business wants to sell or buy and not get banned. Governments don’t want the flack from fighting back, and so who is left willing to speak at all? Nobody mention why China launched that trade war on Australia……when Scott Morrison, Australian Prime Minister, dared ask for an investigation in April 2020, within a week China threatened boycotts, and followed up with severe anti-dumping duties on Australian barley. After which the CCP discovered “inconsistencies in labelling” on Australian beef imports, and added bans or tariffs on Australian wine, wheat, wool, sugar, copper, lobsters, timber and grapes. Then they told their importers not to bring in Australian coal, cotton or LNG either. The only industry they didn’t attack was iron ore, probably because they couldn’t get it anywhere else. In toto, the punishment destroyed about $20 billion dollars in trade, and everyone, even CNN, knew this was political retribution and a message to the world. Matt Ridley does an excellent job unpacking the evidence: With Professor Anton van der Merwe of Oxford University, I detailed how it is no coincidence that this virus turned up in exactly the right city at exactly the right time as they were planning exactly the right experiments that would put exactly the right insertion into exactly the right place in exactly the right gene of exactly the right kind of virus. And to do so at exactly the wrong biosafety level. The outbreak began not just in one of the very few cities doing research on this kind of virus, but also in the city with the biggest SARS-like virus research programme on the planet. These kinds of viruses are found a thousand miles away from Wuhan. That’s the distance of London to Rome. We know of only one animal species that regularly travelled that route, carrying lots of viruses. That animal was the scientists themselves. In the 15 years before the pandemic, they collected over 16,000 bat viruses from all over southern China and south-east Asia and brought them a long way north to Wuhan. The nine closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 at the time of the outbreak were in the freezer of the WIV. Coincidences do happen, but when foot and mouth broke out in the UK in 2007, just down the road from the world’s reference lab for foot-and-mouth virus, people did not think it was just a coincidence. They investigated and sure enough it was a lab leak. The experiments they did in Wuhan were crazily risky. Lab leaks “happen all the time”: There have been lab accidents that caused outbreaks of influenza, anthrax and many other pathogens. In 1977, there was a global influenza pandemic caused by the trial of an experimental vaccine that had been inadequately attenuated. In 2003-4, SARS-1 leaked from a lab at least four times, once in Singapore, once in Taiwan and at least twice in Beijing, and killed the mother of a researcher. In three of those cases, we still don’t know how the accident happened. Bizarrely, no one can even explain why anyone would want to do these experiments. There are a million permutations of possible pandemic causing virions and we’re trying to make them one at a time, in advance, to get ahead of the game? As Ridley says” That went well, didn’t it?”. In January, Chinese scientists published a preprint paper describing a new coronavirus that had a 100% death rate in humanized mice. So the question of bioweapons, of reckless experiments that put us all at risk, is surely one of the most important issues of the era, unlike the exaggerated hyperbole of one more degree of global warming — yet there are no discussion panels on the nightly current affairs circus shows. And the Ministers of Science, Health, and Defence do nothing. And the UN is as useless as it ever was. Read it all at Spiked. Matt has waged his own war for four years to get this story out there. Matt Ridley is a science writer and co-author of Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19, with Alina Chan.
September 11th, 2024 | Tags: Bioweapon, China, Coronavirus | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | |
By Jo Nova Greenpeace USA say it may be bankrupted by a pipeline billionaire
In 2016, Greenpeace and some native American tribal groups and activists camped for months in a corner of North Dakota to stop the crude oil pipeline his company was building. The case is set for trial in February in North Dakota. Obviously the outcome is not known, but everyone seems to be acting as if they do know. The first line of the Wall Street Journal says the billionaire “is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace. ” Donors to Greenpeace will not be happy if their money ends up with a crude oil pipeline company. The Texas Billionaire Who Has Greenpeace USA on the Verge of BankruptcyEnergy Transfer’s lawsuit alleges several Greenpeace entities incited the Dakota Access protests, funded attacks to damage the pipeline, and spread misinformation about the company and its project. The case is set for trial in February in a North Dakota state court, where both sides expect a fossil-fuel-friendly jury. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages, which would likely wipe out Greenpeace USA, according to the group’s leadership. Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA’s acting co-executive director, said the lawsuit is “an existential threat” to the group. Kelce claims people have not wanted to take on these protestors for fear it would “look wrong”: “Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people,” Warren said in a 2017 TV interview. “But what they did to us is wrong, and they’re gonna pay for it.” If the Pipeline billionaire does win the $300 million suit, it will wipe out Greenpeace USA (but not the rest of the Greenpeace international circus.) Greenpeace say they had a “limited role”. The lawsuit alleges they funded attacks on the pipeline, incited protests and spread misinformation. May the floodgates openMeanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, the European arm of Greenpeace has just been ordered to pay $50,000 in fines for getting in the way of oil tankers in 2022: Danish court fines Greenpeace for blocking transit of tankers carrying Russian oilA court in the town of Svendborg in Denmark has imposed fines totalling DKK360,000 (US$53,000) against the local branch of environmental activist group Greenpeace in connection with some of its members’ actions in attempting to disrupt the movement of crude oil imported from Russia. After years of petulant attention-seeking antics, Greenpeace has lost community sympathy and its sacred un-suable glow (at least in some states). This is the company with a budget in the hundreds of millions, which threatened people with “we know where you live”. This was the Greenpeace attitude of 2010: The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and scepticism. If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like. If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fuelling spurious debates around false solutions and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. But ponder what a travesty the justice system is. The pipeline was delayed in 2016, and instead of authorities protecting a legal activity at the time, here we are eight years later, after a million or two has been send to lawyers, and we still don’t have certainty. Meanwhile, Greenpeace and others delayed a product that people wanted. Some poor deplorables must have paid more than they would have for crude oil based products during the delay, but they won’t get a cent back in compensation. If only people could sue the justice system… Protest photo by Becker1999 from Grove City, OH The comments at the WSJ are spirited:Harry Prothero says: “Great news!!! How do I contribute to Mr. Warren’s lawsuit against these jackals?“ Mark Limbruner: Thank goodness an oil & gas executive that’s not running to a foxhole and hiding but is taking the fight to his company’s opponents! Brian Thomas at the WSJ: h/t Reader
 Image by Jacqueline Wales from Pixabay By Jo Nova The modern media is like a form of hypnosisLord help us all. Climate change might wreck Ayers Rock, I mean Uluru. It’s been baking in the desert for 550 million years, but another half a degree C and it’s in “peril“. (You had to use the hair-dryer…) It’s such bad luck. “Climate change” could hit anywhere but it’s going to hit airports, vineyards, national parks, and Bondi Beach? It’s ruining holidays and your favourite symbols. It’s so unfair. I thought this was surely an AI joke, or a grade school project, but Graham Readfearn put his name on it and the Guardian editors didn’t run away. The whole story is a keyword salad of hot button words and random numbers. 620,000 tourism jobs will be at risk they say mindlessly, as if 26 million Australians will stop having holidays and 10 million international guests will stay home, scared off by a one degree Fahrenheit rise. Almost 68% of Australia’s tourism sites at major risk if climate crisis continues, report saysUluru, the Daintree and Bondi beach among iconic Australian locations that could be impacted if planet hits even 2C of warming by 2050 Who comes up with these headlines: “almost 68%”? What is that? They could have said, well ….”67″. They could have said 2 out of 3, but they had to drop some meaningless specificity in there to give these chicken entrails the appearance of “scienctifiiness”. As if the error bars on this analysis don’t reach plus or minus 100. The basis is that some people who want to sell us insurance have helpfully done a report telling us which industries, towns, airports and businesses will be mercilessly crushed by the Climate Gorgon. Given the dismal state of the climate models, these are the modern equivalent of Shamanic Spells. I’m sure the Zurich-Mandala team did good work on the economic costs and losses, but they start with IPCC climate models, so they might as well be analyzing the Land at the top of the Magic Faraway Tree. Even the media know this is a nothing-burgerFor some reason even Bloomberg thought there was something newsworthy about this new “index”: Australian Airports Face Costly Fight Against Worst Climate RiskThe index calculated for the first time the risk from climate change to Australia’s A$170 billion ($114 billion) tourism sector. It studied 178 sites, ranging from Sydney Airport and Bondi Beach to the Melbourne Cricket Ground and Uluru, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change modeling and proprietary impact assessments. Though hold off with the SWAT Team: Assuming 2C of warming, by 2050 the proportion of Australia’s tourism sites in the three highest climate-risk categories will rise from 50% to 55%, the report said. So the writers at Bloomberg know there’s nothing there. To put it bluntly: if half a degree more warming happens by 2050, (and if the models are right, which they rarely are) a big 5% of Australian tourist sites will shift from one arbitrary category to a slightly worse one? That’s as bad as it gets. So much of what we call news is so absurd, yet repetitive, at best, it’s a kind of trance with a drip drip drip feed…
Life on Earth is about to collapse but the government may have to keep their 2035 emissions target a secret until after our next election. Shucks… The government was supposed to release the “2035 update” by February next year. It was part of the sacred Paris Agreement that they pump up the NetZero promises every five years, which means by February 2025. But when The Australian newspaper asked if the government would keep that deadline, the spokeswoman pointedly did not say “Yes”.
Australia will, of course, be caught in the wake of the US Election with our election due by May next year. It will be impossible to run on climate piety if Trump wins (beyond the margin of cheating). And the rise of skeptical parties in Europe is surely spooking campaign managers. Suddenly climate activists don’t want climate on the agendaIn tandem, ‘o-so-conveniently, the chief climate propaganda unit simultaneously announced they might have to delay giving their “frank and fearless advice” until after the election too, proving they are not frank or fearless at all. They’re scared the voters will drive a pike through their climate balloon. They all know the public won’t vote for the Labor Party if they reveal their extortionate plans. The only way for the blob to get what they want is to hide it. They are just copying “the Team-Kamala Plan”. (Don’t mention the Climate.) In the US, Kamala is saying nothing about the climate, and the Greens fully endorse her silence. The only way to solve that paradox is to assume Kamala plans to deceive the voters, and the Green approve of the deceit. For the same reasons, The Climate Change Authority (CCA) (the Australian propaganda unit) also realize that if they lay out the path to Net Zero by 2050 before the election, the Prime Minister will be put on the spot, and forced to deny or admit the points on the list, and they don’t want that. He might have to agree to let Australians buy the car they want, eat whatever they like, and even install gas stoves. That won’t stop him doing those things after the election, but it will make it more embarrassing. It’s harder to win the subsequent election if the opposition can play an annoying reel of him saying “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” and that sort of thing. It’s so much better to lay low, then spring those horrible plans later, after a storm or a flood. Look at the vapid excuses the Climate Change Authority make for delaying the “advice”:
In other words, it is absolutely being dictated by domestic political timetables.
Never in history did they wait for “all the facts” before telling everyone what to do. The only voters who want NetZero targets are the billionaires who invest in unreliable powerThere are no school-girls screaming for climate action any more, just investors:
When they say “businesses need stability” they really mean “businesses need subsidies”. Climate plans will not be released, –Ruairi
September 6th, 2024 | Tags: Australian Politics, Elections | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | |
It’s just another day of profligate waste in Renewable WorldIt’s barely spring in Australia and already we’re reaching the point where there’s too much solar. There’s such an excess of useless energy, prices are negative, meaning the hapless generators have to pay people to take the poison power away. And on Sunday, at a time when investors ought be making their peak profit for the day, they were rushing to turn 80% of their panels off. Feel the pain — the stunted curve of the solar plants (below) is supposed to be the same shape as the rooftop PV. In reality, this is how we make the parabolic curve of orbital solar physics fit a rectangular box — by building five times as much as we need and wasting most of it. Bear in mind, this is just the start of a the lumpy road to nowhere. Even though we already have more solar panels than we can use, we’re supposed to be installing 22,000 more panels every day in Australia to reach our mystical NetZero target. Paul McArdle of WattClarity noticed the dire situation. As he says “rooftop PV is killing it’s big brother!” He has calculated the curtailment levels were often around 40 to 50% for large solar plants in the last week of August. Who would want to invest in a solar plant? And at the moment, there’s a bite out of the daily peak, every day.
Call it “spillage”We’ve reached this surreal point because there is more wind power than usual and it’s spring. The weather is mild, so householders don’t need as much electricity — thus the minimum demand on the grid is falling dangerously low. That’s a problem because the giant coal plants and other reliable generators need to keep running, to supply the frequency stabilization and so they can ramp up to fill the gaps. Wild winds blow up solar farm profitsAngela Macdonald-Smith, Australian Financial Review [Josh Stabler, managing director at adviser Energy Edge] …said the available wind and solar resource almost exceeded total demand, but noted that renewable “spillage” – where renewable output is not made use of – was also at a record high. “Spillage and abundance will be continuous features of the electricity market into the future and will become more common, especially during spring,” Mr Stabler said. It’s mayhem on the market: The 24-hour average wholesale price was negative for Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, according to National Electricity Market data, with NSW only just in positive territory at $16.81 a megawatt-hour for the 24 hours to 3am on Monday. That compares with the four-week average price in NSW of $206.23/MWh. So wholesale electricity prices are six times higher than they used to be, and we have an overdesigned grid with twice as much infrastructure as we need and most of the time, a lot of the capital assets are sitting around doing nothing. And people think if we just do more it will “be cheaper”. September 5th, 2024 | Tags: Solar Energy (PV) | Category: Australia, Global Warming, Renewable | Print This Post | |  Phillippsburg Nuclear Power Plant by Lothar Neumann, Gernsbach
By Jo Nova If the Germans just did nothing at all, it would have been GreenerGermany already had nuclear power in 2002, if they just kept it and didn’t build all the wind and solar plants, they wouldn’t have had to spend 697 Billion Euro on subsidies, and would have cut their emissions by 73% more. If ever there is a statistic that says there is something rotten in the State of Climate Panic, this is surely it. I mean, does CO2 matter or doesn’t it? Do the Greens care at all, or even a bit? If there was a climate emergency and The Greens were worried about CO2, they might have protested that the EnergieWende was a reckless experiment. But if the Greens were tools for communists, foreign states or banker-investors, then they might keep choosing options that benefit other countries, help Bankers or just make Big Government bigger. Either the German Greens have utterly failed at the very task they set out to do, or they were really aiming at something else. Ross Pomery writes at RealClearScience and WattsUpWithThat Study Quantifies Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear PowerAt the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022… In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple. Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU just published a study comparing the ambitious German Energiewende renewable program with nuclear power: “what if Germany had spent their money on nuclear power and not followed their policy from 2002 through 2022 (20 years); would Germany have achieved more emission reductions and lower expenses?” Even German bureaucrats admit Energiewende “poses a threat to the German economy”: German Federal Accounting Office (Bundesrechnungshof) writes about the German policy dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ in German, and it concludes: ‘The Bundesrechnungshof warns that the energy transition in its current form poses a threat to the German economy and overburdens the financial capacity of electricity-consuming companies and households’ (Bundesrechnungshof Citation2021a). A whole lot of wind (green) and solar (orange) power were added to the German grid and it was worse than useless:
Given these results, there can be no doubt whatsoever that if Germany had invested in NPPs [Nuclear Power Plants] instead of VREs [Variable Renewable Energy], Germany would have decarbonised more with far less nominal expenditures. The short conclusion is that Germany would have reached its climate goals with a substantial margin at half the expenditures of Energiewende. The Germans have done this experiment so we don’t have toJust burn that money in a pyre to the Weather Gods:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#d1e128 These costs do not include the added burden of expensive electricity on businesses and homes, the opportunity costs of money that could have been spent elsewhere, or the loss of talent, brains and industry to other countries. Building new nuclear plants was still cheaper than wind and solarThe paper goes through another scenario where more nuclear plants were built with careful estimations of the costs and long times to construct plants and still concludes that the Germans would have saved $330 billion euro.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#d1e128 Not coincidentally, in 2024 Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in Europe, business confidence is low, and VW have just announced that after 87 years in production, they might have to close their German factories. Volkswagen, which was founded in 1937, said on Monday that it could no longer rule out unprecedented plant closures in Germany as it seeks ways to save several billion euros. Chief executive Oliver Blume said: “The economic environment has become even tougher and new players are pushing into Europe. Germany as a business location is falling further behind in terms of competitiveness.” Volkswagen employs around 650,000 workers globally, almost 300,000 of whom are in Germany, and the threat of factory closures sparked an immediate fierce backlash … REFERENCEEmblemsvåg, J. (2024). What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison between the German energy policy the last 20 years and an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642
September 4th, 2024 | Tags: Germany, Nuclear Energy, Solar Energy (PV), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | By Jo Nova The Modern West is regressing to 8th Century occult scienceToday the supposed “newspaper of record” for the most powerful nation on Earth is effectively telling people that the steak they eat, the car they drive and the heater they use could cause bridges to collapse “like Tinkertoys”. But you’ll have to join the dots yourself, because they never do. No one asks the experts: How many Tofu-burgers does it take to save Brooklyn Bridge? How many bus trips will we need to save the Golden Gate? The worlds leading journalists never ask the obvious questions. They just leave a trail of breadcrumbs: Man makes CO2, CO2 causes Spooky weather and Spooky weather eats bridges. So good people drive EV’s! Each breadcrumb looks like bread, like it might be real, but no one sees the whole loaf and before you know it, everyone is lost in the woods, installing solar panels to save their bridges. Two days ago the breadcrumbs said “good people go without air conditioners”.
Things are so bad the New York Times tells us that on a 95 degree day in summer, one bridge in Manhattan got stuck open “for hours”. (The tragedy). Another time a railway bridge in Iowa got washed away and some pavement buckled in Maine. The truth is that US bridges are a miracle. There are, seriously, more than 600,000 bridges across the country and yet this was all the catastrophe they could find in the leading paragraph. We’re supposed to believe that we’re in a bridge crisis, and that “extreme” heat, floods and “snap weather changes” are new, and worse, and we’re causing it. Be afraid:“…now, extreme heat and increased flooding linked to climate change are accelerating the disintegration of the nation’s bridges, engineers say, essentially causing them to age prematurely. The New York Times doesn’t mention the big numbers, but they do say that a quarter of the bridges in the US were built before 1960. So amazingly there are 150,000 bridges which are over 60 years old. The oldest is 327 years old. They’re trying to make out that old bridges weren’t built to cope with modern”climate change”. But who designs bridges that can’t handle warming of a half a degree? The last time anyone died in a bridge collapse in the US it was not climate change but because a ship ran into it. The time before that, the footbridge that collapsed was still under construction. People are not being killed by climate change, they’re being killed by incompetence. The Professor was paid to find a crisisAnd as I keep saying “we got what we paid for”: “We have a bridge crisis that is specifically tied to extreme weather events,” said Paul Chinowsky, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder who researches the effects of climate change on infrastructure. “These are not things that would happen under normal climate circumstances. These are not things that we’ve ever seen at this rate.” So if Prof Chinowsky found that “climate change” had no effect at all he wouldn’t get much of a grant next year. His field is hardly likely to be starring in emergency sessions at the UN and he probably won’t get a paid ski-trip to meet Harry and Megan at Davos either. On a more mundane level the top students won’t be beating a path to his door. Even if he is a decent bloke and a breadwinner, all roads in Science World serve the government. The real problem in this story is that one sided government funding has killed science, and the journalists are conducting a seance with the ashes. h/t Bally September 3rd, 2024 | Tags: Corruption (Media), Corruption (science), Media bias | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2024 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments