Day: March 20, 2024

Globalists hallucinating that the “micro-second” of humanity on Earth is mightier than galactic forces.

The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and 99.999% of those physical and climate changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet. Humanity’s 8 billion have only been on earth for less than 200 years which represents a micro-second of the 4.5 billion years the Sun and Earth have existed.

from Watts Up With That?

The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and 99.999% of those physical and climate changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet. Humanity’s 8 billion have only been on earth for less than 200 years which represents a micro-second of the 4.5 billion years the Sun and Earth have existed.

Published March 18, 2024, America Out Loud NEWS

Globalists hallucinate that the “micro-second” of humanity on Earth is mightier than galactic forces
Ronald Stein

Ronald Stein  is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

Without getting too detailed with geological explanations of the physical and climate changes to Mother Earth over the last 4.5 billion years, let’s review, in layman’s language, some of those changes against the current evaluation of the rise in temperatures during the “micro-second”, i.e., the “hockey stick” of time that current humanity has been on this planet.

To put size, time, and events in perspective, let’s look at this old planet that we’re on:

SUN: The Sun is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it.

AGE OF EARTH: The earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.

Earth’s age                              4,500,000,000 years

Present day humanity                              200 years

The current 8 billion people on this planet have been on earth for about a micro-moment of the Earth’s life!!!!

Many physical and climate changes have occurred because of the complexity of atmospheric, planetary, and galactic forces of the solar system that determine Earth’s climate and 99.999% of those changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet.

  • GLACIAL MOVEMENTS:  Glacial advances and retreats have been caused by changes in the axis of the earth in the solar system. The earth has experienced 40 or so glacial maximums throughout its history, with the most recent glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago.
  • GRAND CANYON: The Grand Canyon was developed over 12,000 years of water erosion carving out the majestic cliffs and valleys that we see today. There were no environmentalists around at that time that were concerned about the vast changes occurring to the earth’s landscape.
  • HABITABLE LAND: Today the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land. Out of this 29%, about 33% are considered uninhabitable as it is mountainous, deserts, Artic or other inhospitable environments. This means that roughly 20% of the Earth’s total surface area is habitable by humans.
  • OCEANS: The deepest part of the ocean at 36,000 feet is at the Marianas Trench located in the Pacific Ocean. To put this depth into perspective, consider that the highest point in the world is Mount Everest at 29,029 feet. The size and depth of the oceans account for 99% of the planet’s living space.
  • HUMANITY INHABITANTS: The earth population increased from 1 to 8 billion in 200 years after the discovery of oil.
  • Oil has allowed us to produce more food, provide better healthcare, generate substantial industries, and create more jobs. Oil is used to power machinery that is used in agriculture, communications, transportation, and manufacturing. This has allowed us to produce more food than ever before, which has fed a growing population. Additionally, in modern times, oil is used to produce pharmaceuticals and medical equipment that have helped to extend life expectancy and improve overall worldwide health.
  • Furthermore, the discovery of oil has led to the creation of new industries and job opportunities. The oil industry itself employs millions of people around the world, but it has also spurred the growth of other industries, such as the automobile, healthcare, electronics, and airline industries. These industries have created millions of additional jobs and have helped to drive economic growth.
  • Note: While renewables have made some strides in generating occasional electricity from inconsistent breezes and sunshine, they cannot make any of the more than 6,000 products demanded by our materialistic society that are now totally based on crude oil. Fossil fuels are essential in the production of countless products that we use in our daily lives, from tires and synthetic fibers to fertilizers and pharmaceuticals.
  • INFRASTRUCTURES: The infrastructures that exist today are vastly different from those that existed before the 1800s. In the past, infrastructure was limited and mostly rudimentary. Roads were unsealed and were often narrow and winding. Bridges were made of wood and could not carry the load of today’s traffic. Transportation was limited to horse-drawn carriages and sailing craft. Communication was slow, as it relied upon the manual carriage of written messages and was unreliable.
  • Since the 1800s, medical science has made significant advancements in the field of healthcare. Prior to the 19th century, most medical treatments were based on superstitions and folklore. However, with the advent of modern medical science, new medicines and medical facilities have been developed to help treat a variety of illnesses and diseases. Some of the most significant medical advancements since the 1800s include the discovery of antibiotics, the development of vaccines, the creation of X-rays and other imaging technologies, and the establishment of hospitals and medical schools. These advancements have helped to improve the overall health and well-being of people around the world.
  • Today, infrastructure has evolved significantly, thanks to advancements in technology and engineering. Roads are wider, smoother, and made of concrete or asphalt. Bridges are made of steel and can withstand heavy loads. Communication is instantaneous, because of modern electronic systems. Transportation has become faster and more efficient, with the invention of cars, trains, modern ocean-going ships, and airplanes.
  • CO2 LEVELS: During the Earth’s glacial advances and retreats, the CO2 levels were driven nearly entirely by temperature changes in the ocean, with the colder oceans during glacial advance sequestering huge amounts of CO2 and then expelling it during interglacial warming periods.
  • Today CO2 levels are about 420 ppm. The level at which plants stop growing and die is 150 ppm. When plants die, all life on Earth will die.
  • Today, commercial greenhouse owners control the CO2 levels up to 1000 to 1200 ppm to maximize growth rates.
  • Today, the earth is greening because of increasing CO2.
  • Today, the level of CO2 in submarines averages 3,500 ppm as submarines routinely operate with higher levels of ambient CO2 in submarines in the range of, 2000 – 5000 ppm. 

The climate has been changing for 4 billion years and 99.999% of those changes occurred when humans were NOT on this planet. Thus, after putting our current “micro second” on this planet into perspective of the earth’s existence in the solar system, we might ask: How dare the political, bureaucratic, academic, and media ruling elites, who disseminate theoretical nonsense, calculated myths and outright disinformation  imply that their “green” policies for humanity’s micro moment presence on this planet to change the climate are more forceful than the galactic forces of the solar system?

My personal thoughts about present day humanity’s ability to impact climate change are comparable to an individual urinating in the ocean and believing he or she can change the temperature of the ocean waters!

How dare the Globalists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Pope Francis, John Kerry, and millions of zombie followers that have only been on the planet less than 80 years out of the 4.5 billion plus years of the existence of this marvelous planet, imply that their “green” policies to change the climate are more forceful than the effects of the Sun and the solar system? What mindless arrogance!

Ronald Stein P.E.

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.

Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy literacy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.

Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.

The Tories are stuck in a Net Zero trap of their own making

With a general election due at some point in the next nine months, Sunak couldn’t resist playing politics too, accusing Labour of taking a ‘fantasy approach’ to energy security. This accusation was reinforced in a speech on the same day by the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Claire Coutinho.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

This is by Rupert Darwall in the Spectator:

With a general election due at some point in the next nine months, Sunak couldn’t resist playing politics too, accusing Labour of taking a ‘fantasy approach’ to energy security. This accusation was reinforced in a speech on the same day by the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Claire Coutinho. Without naming Labour, Coutinho argued that pretending ‘you can do things overnight is a fundamentally dishonest position’, referring to Starmer’s pledge to decarbonise the grid by 2030 rather than by 2035.

Having more onshore wind, as Miliband wants, doesn’t make wind intermittency disappear

But there is a fundamental difficulty with Sunak and Coutinho’s attempt to position themselves on the side of realism and honesty on this issue. They too are trapped by their commitment to achieving Net Zero. The Tories’ differences with Labour on this are mainly matters of degree. Both parties are committed to decarbonising the grid in absurdly short time scales, both pledge a massive build out of wind power that will push up energy bills and both have played down the impact of intermittent wind generation on the grid.

The fact that wind is an intermittent source of energy means that the grid can do without it, but it can’t do without fossil fuel and nuclear generation. ‘Without gas backing up renewables, we face the genuine prospect of blackouts,’ Coutinho said in her speech in a welcome statement of the obvious.

But Coutinho gets electricity generation back-to-front. Rather than gas providing backup for intermittent wind-generated power, gas-fired capacity provides the backbone of the grid and wind is a high-cost, optional extra. In essence, investing in wind requires having two parallel sets of generating capacity: one that generates electricity only when the wind is blowing and one that can generate electricity 24/7.

Coutinho’s speech last week was billed as a strategy for energy security. Any strategy worth its name includes the means of delivering its objectives, which, in this case, means building more gas-fired capacity. Energy ministers since Sir Ed Davey’s time in David Cameron’s coalition government have identified the need for more gas-fired power stations. In 2012, Sir Ed said that 20 new gas-fired plants would be needed between 2012 and 2030. ‘I strongly support more gas,’ he told the Guardian at the time.

In a 2015 speech, Sir Ed’s successor, Amber Rudd announced the government’s intention to take coal off the grid by 2025. ‘We’ll only proceed,’ she said though, ‘if we’re confident that the shift to new gas can be achieved within these timescales.’ Coal has since all but come off the grid, but hardly any new gas-fired power plants came on. In fact, gas-fired generating capacity peaked in 2012 at 37 gigawatts (GW). By the end of 2020, gas-generating capacity had fallen by over 2 GW to 34.9 GW.

Any serious energy strategy must ask why that is the case and then come up with a solution. Huge subsidies for intermittent renewable energy generation capacity mean that power stations are operated less efficiently. Meanwhile, the government’s policy of pushing up the artificial cost of carbon plunged the ‘Big Six’ energy companies’ thermal generators into loss. In 2014, the Big Six recorded losses of £1.6 billion on their gas and coal-fired power stations. As Rudd observed in 2015, ‘we now have an electricity system where no form of power generation, not even gas-fired power stations, can be built without government intervention’.

Rather than address the fundamental reasons why investors shun gas, Coutinho offered up a mishmash of contradictory soundbites in last week’s speech. Acknowledging that new gas would be permitted to emit carbon dioxide for a ‘brief window of time’, the Energy Secretary said that as more wind and long-duration storage is built, these new power stations will run less frequently. But this will make it an even steeper climb for investors to recover the capital expenditure sunk into the plants.

Furthermore, new gas power stations will be required to be ‘Net Zero ready’ when they’re built. Either they must be able to connect to carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) or have turbines that can also burn green hydrogen. On CCUS, the government is making a £20 billion bet on what Coutinho calls ‘this game-changing technology’. CCUS needs costly pipeline and storage infrastructure, not to mention that the post-combustion removal of carbon dioxide incurs an additional energy penalty. Outside the oil and gas industry, where CCUS is used to enhance oil and gas retrieval, the technology has yet to demonstrate commercial viability and quite probably never will. Betting on silver bullets seldom turns out well.

Green hydrogen is another silver bullet that’s colossally expensive. In a 2022 report, policy expert Francis Menton went through the pie-in-the-sky economics of relying on renewable electricity to make hydrogen to burn in a gas-fired power station. To use green hydrogen to produce the same quantities of electricity as gas, you need a turbine capable of producing 288 MW, costing $305 million (£240 million), plus a supporting 4.7 GW of solar capacity – more than 16 times the capacity of the gas-fired power station – to provide electricity directly to the grid and generate sufficient hydrogen to be stored as backup. In total, this would cost $6.6 billion (£5.2 billion). By contrast, natural gas would require just the $305 million gas turbine plus $600 million-worth (£472 million) of natural gas, making a total cost of around $900m.

These numbers illustrate why the costs of Net Zero are off the charts. Yet Coutinho says the government will stand with potential investors if they avoid ‘hiking bills for families’. Similarly, the Prime Minister promises to deliver Net Zero ‘but not by piling thousands of pounds worth of costs onto households’. Both are being less than honest in their denial of a trade-off between decarbonisation and the cost of energy. Coutinho boasts that the newest auction round for low carbon energy has ‘the largest ever pot for renewables’. The word she left out is ‘subsidy’, as in ‘subsidy pot’, which is funded by painfully high and rising levies on consumer bills.

In this month’s Budget, the Chancellor has quadrupled the annual subsidy available to renewable investors after the industry complained that last year’s subsidy was not enough. Thanks to the Climate Change Act (2008) imposing on the government a legal duty to pursue Net Zero, the wind industry has ministers over a barrel. The government has ‘listened to the energy industry’, Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of trade group Energy UK, told the FT, and Jeremy Hunt’s boost to the renewables budget had sent an ‘important signal’ to investors.

Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband, who drove the Climate Change Act through parliament, said Coutinho was attempting to open up a culture war. Energy policy isn’t a form of wish-fulfilment. Having more onshore wind, as Miliband wants, doesn’t make wind intermittency disappear. This isn’t a dispute about culture: it’s the hard reality of intermittency that Miliband prefers to ignore.

Ironically, Miliband’s plan for a state-owned Great British Energy company presents Britain’s only realistic option to invest in new gas. Even if private investors could make the numbers add up to invest in gas, regulatory risk would have them run a mile. The government is the source of regulatory risk and is therefore better positioned to manage it than private investors. If Starmer wants to keep the lights on, the first call on Labour’s £23.7 billion green prosperity fund should be investing in a fleet of new gas-fired power stations. As Coutinho rightly says, ‘there are no easy solutions in energy.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-britain-needs-new-gas-fired-power-stations/#comments-container

Proposed CO anti-hunting initiative will have damaging impact on conservation nationally

In Episode 422 of District of Conservation, Gabriella speaks with Dan Gates from Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management – a 501 (c) 4 organization fighting bans on big game hunting. Dan talks about several ballot initiatives being mulled over in Colorado this year and how his state is center stage for the fight over the future of conservation.

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman

“It’s a hunting ban…The definition of trophy hunting is to intentionally kill, wound, stalk, pursuit, or/and trap a bobcat or a mountain lion, intentionally kill wound. And I joke about this: I don’t know anybody that goes out and intentionally tries to wound anything. But intentionally kill, pursue, stalk, or entrap a bobcat or mountain lion—that is hunting. And the thing that should be concerning to people is that the way that this is written, they won’t be regulatory—they will be statutory. And a precedent can be set not only within our state, but other Western states and throughout the United States, for that matter, that if anybody wants to utilize similar language, they can capitalize on the inefficiencies or ineffectiveness of what we wouldn’t have been able to accomplish by allowing this measure to move forward…,” — Dan Gates, Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management

In Episode 422 of District of Conservation, Gabriella speaks with Dan Gates from Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management – a 501 (c) 4 organization fighting bans on big game hunting. Dan talks about several ballot initiatives being mulled over in Colorado this year and how his state is center stage for the fight over the future of conservation.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

SHOW NOTES

⁠Website⁠ | ⁠Instagram⁠ | ⁠Facebook

Photo: Zoom/ Dan Gates & Gabriella Hoffman

Though Europe Was Mild, Winter’s Been A Beast Over Much Of Northern Hemisphere

Heavy snowfall hit large parts of Europe recently, including southern Spain. Several provinces in the Andalusia region remain under a snow warning following a “wintry” weekend, according to the Spanish weather authority Aemet, after Storm Monica caused heavy snowfall, strong winds and/or rough seas. According to Aemet, the largest amounts of snow will accumulate in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

Cold report No. 11 / 2024

By Chris Frey, Christian Freuer for EIKE.

Excerpts translated by P. Gosselin

Photo: © P. Gosselin

Heavy snowfall hit large parts of Europe recently, including southern Spain. Several provinces in the Andalusia region remain under a snow warning following a “wintry” weekend, according to the Spanish weather authority Aemet, after Storm Monica caused heavy snowfall, strong winds and/or rough seas. According to Aemet, the largest amounts of snow will accumulate in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada.

Another meter of snow in Newfoundland

A late winter snowstorm dumped a meter of fresh snow on Newfoundland.

Significant amounts of ice were also observed on the Avalon and Burin peninsulas.
Preliminary figures show that one meter of snow fell in Kilbride, over 80 cm in Bay Roberts and 79.7 cm in Paradise – to name just three locations.

 Antarctic sea ice recovery

Anomalous/record-breaking cold continues to affect the lower part of the world. On Sunday, March 10, values below -60 °C were measured again in Vostok: -63.1 °C, to be exact.

As for Antarctic sea ice, a remarkable – and “overlooked” by the MSM – reversal of fortune is taking place. The once cripplingly low extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²).

Just as in 1997, the ice extent today is greater than in 2023, 2022, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2011, 2006, 1993, 1992, 1991 and 1981:

NSIDC

Five dead from snowstorms in the Alps

Severe snowstorms have battered the European Alps in recent weeks and the death toll is rising.

Five missing skiers have “frozen to death” in the Swiss Alps while trying to build a cave to protect themselves from the elements, rescuers say. A sixth is still missing and an intensive search is underway.

It has been snowing heavily in the Alps recently, a fact barely reported by the warmth-addicted mainstream. In Macugnaga, Italy, for example, another 75 cm of fresh snow fell on Sunday, with more than 3 m accumulating at altitude.
Despite claims to the contrary by the MSM, this has been a good snow season for the European mountains, with most peaks and ski resorts above average in terms of snowfall.

Western Canadian cold wave costs 180 million dollars

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), the extreme cold snap in Western Canada in January led to insured losses of at least 180 million dollars.

In British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, initial estimates indicate that most of the damage was to personal property, such as water damage from burst pipes. These estimates do not include the “catastrophic losses” suffered by many farmers in places like the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia, where grape growers lost their entire crop this year.

The brutal mid-January freeze dropped temperatures to a “deadly” -27°C in key wine-growing regions in B.C.’s southern interior.

A February report from Wine Growers BC said it expected an “almost complete write-off of the 2024 vintage” with $346 million in lost revenue for vineyards and wineries.

“It was an unusual winter season with extreme variability in conditions across the country,” said Rob de Pruis of the IBC.

West gets buried by March snowstorms…

In a matter of days, a series of snowstorms that battered the Sierra Nevada changed the outlook for water supplies from a “1,200-year megadrought” to “help, we’re all going to drown,” according to federal resource managers (I’m paraphrasing a bit here).

After a four-day snowstorm that began on Leap Day, the snowpack in the Eastern Sierra increased by a record-breaking 30%.

By the end of the heavy snowstorm, above-average snowpacks were measured in the California and Nevada basins – a twist of fate that caused vehicles to get stuck and highways to be closed between the two states.

According to official data, the intensity of the four-day snowstorm was also among the strongest ever recorded. Since 1981, only three storms have brought more snow over four days than this year’s blizzard.

Nevada

Nevada also benefited from the increased snowfall in the Great Basin. Snow levels in the Upper Colorado Basin, for example, are now at 105% of normal. In addition, last year’s record snowpack has continued to buffer Nevada’s reservoirs and “allowed for some carryover,” according to Thomas Albright, interim climatologist for the state of Nevada.

The increasing snowpack this year could actually bring a longer period of rain (of more than two years in a row) for the first time this century, said Dan McEvoy of the Western Regional Climate Center.

“We’ve had more events since 2000, with some of the wettest and driest years on record in the last decade alone, but no consecutive trends,” McEvoy added.

Utah

The Alta ski area in northern Utah has also seen good snowfall in recent weeks.

After last year’s record snowfall, it may come as a surprise to hear that the snowpack on March 1, 2024 was actually two centimeters deeper than March 1, 2023 (386 cm) and only 4 centimeters away from beating the resort’s February record.

Alta averaged over 13.5 cm of snow per day last month, making it the third snowiest February on record.

“Severe snowfall” in Portugal
The Portuguese ski resort of Serra da Estrela reports that it has “the best conditions in years” after the “enormous snowfall” over the weekend.

Like most ski resorts in Europe, Serra da Estrela is experiencing a kind of post-season deluge, as a huge storm from Friday to Sunday buried lifts and buildings under meters of snow:

Serra da Estrela after a snowstorm in March 2024.

Despite the access problems, the area is fully open with 22 slopes.

Arctic sea ice above average
As with Antarctic sea ice extent – see above – the upper part of the world is doing exceptionally well, considering that this is the “hottest year in the last 125,000 years”.

The official data shows that Arctic sea ice extent is well above the multidecadal average:

NSIDC

It is also well above the 21st century average.

To illustrate this in a way that even the most deluded alarmist can understand, the extent of Arctic sea ice today is the same as it was in 1995, when Al Gore was Vice President:

There’s a reason we haven’t heard much about the Arctic in recent months, and that’s because there’s nothing to worry about.

Heavy snowfall in Colorado

A severe storm is currently bringing meters of snow to Colorado, leading to the cancellation of flights and the closure of a major highway.

The blizzard, which began on Wednesday evening, is not expected to subside until Friday. It brought more than 90 cm of snow to the higher elevations by Thursday evening, with another 60 cm expected by Friday morning. In Denver itself, about 20 cm fell on Thursday and another 25 cm is expected.

Loveland Ski Area announced that it is closed. The other is Eldora Mountain “because the plow and grader cannot access the slopes on Shelf Road.” According to a release from the area, at least one day of work is required.

This is the first time in over 20 years that Eldora has been closed due to snow. The last time was in 2003 around St. Patrick’s Day.

Stark weather change in Toronto

From spring-like warmth to the return of winter, Toronto won’t know where it stands this week with a 24 degree Celsius temperature difference and snow in the forecast.

A chilly and wet St. Patrick’s Day on Sunday will give way to a very cold Monday. The Weather Network is predicting a daytime high of -2°C on Monday, although the actual temperature could drop as low as -4°C overnight.

Wednesday saw highs of 20°C, and within a few days we will see frost and snowfall – only a centimeter or two, but what a shock to the system, what a change between extremes.

According to the Weather Network report, “Drivers should prepare for the return of winter as the threat of snowfall in southern Ontario is not over.”

New blast of cold air in China

The Chinese region of Xinjiang recorded a remarkably low temperature of -52.3 °C in February, a new national record.

The snowfall in February was also exceptional.

Stories also at: https://electroverse.substack.com/l

Unhappy Tesla Owner!

This letter to the editor was printed in the Inverness Oran in Feb 2024. (Given the detail, I have no reason to believe it is not genuine)

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

This letter to the editor was printed in the Inverness Oran in Feb 2024. (Given the detail, I have no reason to believe it is not genuine):

February 28, 2024

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to a letter in the February 14th publication entitled, “Benefits of Electric Vehicles.” My husband and I drive a 2021 Long Range Tesla Model 3. My hope is to shed some light on what it is like living in Inverness County with an electric vehicle.

For a bit of context, I am not your run-of-the-mill naysayer. We’ve been driving an EV for the last three years, we are organic farmers, we lived in a fully off-grid, solar powered home for eight years, and we attended that big Greta Thunberg inspired climate change march in Halifax back in 2019. I feel slightly embarrassed about sharing this so publicly because I truly feel that we got duped by clever and persuasive EV/doomsday marketing. After reading Paul Strome’s letter, featuring all those key marketing points, I felt compelled to write in. Here is our electric car experience:

2021 – Rosy new car: Wow! This is great!

– The car was more expensive up front, but it only costs about $14 to “fill the tank” and we can conveniently charge with our Level 2 charger at home whenever we want. That will more than make up for the initial cost over time, considering the price of gas!

– No pesky oil changes and Tesla’s titanium shield under the car means no repairs due to rust! Great – more savings!

– When going to Halifax, we need to recharge at the Enfield Supercharger. Recharging takes 18 minutes, but no big deal: bathroom break, stretch your legs, get a coffee; just minor adjustments to how we drove with a gas car.

Not-so-nice realizations from year one:

– The undulating, electric hum while the car charges for seven hours permeates our entire home and yard. Is that healthy?

– Needing to exit the vehicle for 20 minutes at the Supercharger because it feels very unhealthy to be in such a high voltage environment while it’s charging. Rain, shine, snow or sleet – Everybody out!

– Learning that every time you recharge the battery, the battery life decreases. It actually can damage the battery to charge to 100 per cent and it is advised that you don’t charge more than 80 per cent for day-to-day use.

2022 – One-year-old car:

– Can still make it to Sydney and back, but we shouldn’t make many detours if we want to make it home again. Having to stop in Baddeck for two hours to “juice up” just to make the 40-minute journey home doesn’t make much sense…

– Can still make it to the Enfield Supercharger when going to Halifax, but no detours. Stick to the highway or else.

Christmas 2023 – 2.5-year-old car:

Heading to the Valley Christmas Eve (outside temperature is -5oC).

– “I don’t think we’re going to make it to the Supercharger…” “What the heck! We’re definitely not going to make it!” The whole family, plus two dogs, wandered around Truro for 1.5 hours, in the cold twilight while charging just enough to make it to the Enfield Supercharger.

– With everyone’s spirits low, we wander around the Enfield Big Stop parking lot in the cold while the car charges for 35 minutes. Can’t bring the dogs into Timmy’s and staying in the car while it’s charging feels like every hair on your body is getting charged up too.

– Charge up again at the New Minas Supercharger, just in case, because the wall plug at Grandma’s takes days to charge the car and we can’t believe how poorly the car is performing.

Coming home after Christmas:

– Leave Middleton. Stop at the Supercharger in New Minas for 10 minutes to add some charge. Everyone out into the cold!

– Leave New Minas. Stop in Enfield to fully recharge for 35 minutes. Everybody out into the cold: Kids, dogs; everyone. It’s windy and half raining/half snowing. How wonderfully modern and convenient it is to drive an EV!

– Make it back home with six per cent. Phew!

January 2024 – 2.5-year-old car:

– 10oC, but dropping, so range is dropping too.

– Husband arrives at Enfield Supercharger. Relief!

– Enfield supercharger is down. Neither the car nor Telsa phone app notified him; 9:00 p.m. on a Sunday. No indication of when/if the charger will turn on again. Car is at three per cent. Not enough power to keep the heat on, let alone drive to a motel. Other EV drivers there are all cursing their cars and their decisions…

– After an hour of being stranded, the chargers come online again.

– 60 minutes to recharge after going so low and it being so cold out. Two hours, stuck at the Enfield Big Stop!

February 2024 (last week) – 2.5-year-old car

– We are driving home from the airport. I’m driving my 2012 Toyota Matrix (680 km/tank). I have to go pick up the dogs from the boarder, just outside Antigonish. It’s too big of a detour for the “Long Range” Tesla to handle.

– Even with that detour, I make it home first. The Tesla took 60 minutes to charge in Enfield. It takes longer to charge a cold battery, but surely they should be home by now…

– My husband finally made it home. He crawled home, with the heat turned off, because he was trying to conserve power. Made it home with six per cent.

We’ve looked into it: There is nothing wrong with our car. This is just the natural diminishing of an EV battery over time, combined with fairly mild NS winter driving.

This is what range anxiety looks like! It is not, as Paul Strome so kindly put it, “for those drivers who have trouble paying attention to their fuel gauge.” Range anxiety means constantly paying attention to your fuel gauge and crossing your fingers and toes, hoping you’re going to make it! It’s leaving home with a “full tank” to go 290 km and worrying about not arriving!

The February 14th letter features all of the dealership, government, and activist talking points. None of it is based on the real life experience of a rural EV owner. The “official range” of EVs is not based in reality. Only on the first day out of the factory (if it’s sunny, with no wind, temps between 15-20oC, on a straight stretch road with no hills) would our car ever live up to its range expectations.

Speaking as a former climate change activist and current EV driver, I can only see EVs working if you live in a big city and never plan on leaving that big city. The last thing we should be pushing for is to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 in Canada. Yes, we absolutely have to take better care of our planet, but EVs make zero sense in the real world.

Hilary Mueller

Mabou

Hurricane hysteria demands upgrades to how we measure them

The upgrade of a 937 MB ( Ian) hurricane with a spot wind of 160 mph, meaning a cat 5. Having a cat 5 is laughable because of one post-analysis idea. It is giving ammo to climate change people who have no idea that total energy in these storms, as measured better by our POWER AND IMPACT SCALE, is not increasing. 

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

The upgrade of a 937 MB ( Ian) hurricane with a spot wind of 160 mph, meaning a cat 5. Having a cat 5 is laughable because of one post-analysis idea. It is giving ammo to climate change people who have no idea that total energy in these storms, as measured better by our POWER AND IMPACT SCALE, is not increasing.  Idalia is a joke, too. When you can’t find sustained winds at a landfall point over 55 mph, you don’t have a major hurricane.

Let us review the power and impact scale and the idea behind it.

It uses Saffir Simpson pressure as a factor and 6-hour averaged recon winds.  So Saffir Simpson is a foundation.

But, it also takes into account pressure tendency. A hurricane hitting the coast with rapid pressure falls in the last 12 hours will get its strongest winds to the surface. That should be intuitive since there must be a perfect alignment of the parameters needed to produce the storm intensity for that kind of rapid intensification.  This means it is very hard to sustain that top wind. It is why calls for Cat 6 are an agenda-driven joke being pushed by people who are using Saffir Simpson to try to exaggerate how bad it is.

The classic was Florence. A major media outlet was opining that, when it reached the coast, it could be a cat 6. In reality, it was a 1 or 2.

If pressures are rising rapidly, as with Idalia, you subtract a category. The observations fit the hypothesis. If the pressure is essentially a steady state, the storm is in an equilibrium, and the standard ideas on wind can be used. The point is that in a rapidly deepening storm, winds can be almost 100% of flight level, and in a weakening storm, as low as 50%, as we saw with Idalia.

But a spot wind speed with all the reasons to adjust and constant data has left Saffir Simpson unusable in the face of history. Why? Because it does not take SIZE into account. Ian is the last storm I would want to downplay. Since nine days before I penned this, it was published on September 22nd. The hurricane hit the 28th-29th. I wrote it on the 20th.

https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/21/41023

But Ian was no Donna. The size of Donna and the extent of strong winds were much greater.

The highest wind gusts in Miami Dade with Ian were, in most cases, under 50 mph.

Look at what happened in Donna.

In Miami, winds reached 97 mph (156 km/h).

So what we do is we measure the 2 greatest quadrants of  64 knots per hour (kt) winds, 50 kt winds, and 34 kt winds.

So, each of these is getting a factor. Think about how many extra parameters you have to evaluate the storm.

You have the Saffir Simpson factors of pressure and wind. So, we are using it as a base. (BTW, notice how Cat 5 hurricanes now have higher pressures than they used to?

Another indication that they are much more compact. But since the climate crowd wants to claim these are getting worse, then what needs to be done is ALL STORMS ARE REANALYZED — AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE ARE SAYING — THE SIZE OF THE STORM BECAUSE THEN WE CAN TELL IF THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE STORM IS GETTING GREATER. Fat chance that will happen since it will reveal they are not.)

You have a pressure tendency in the last 12 hours. You have the radius of winds assigned values. For the mariners, we can also tack on the radius of the high seas. If we want to quantify it, a rainfall parameter has to be put in, but I think that should be a separate scale.

So you have a much more descriptive index of a storm; the more descriptive, the more objective the analysis.

For instance, Sandy was a major on my scale. Even though we had cat 1 winds on Saffir Simpson, its pressure was a strong cat 3. BUT THE SIZE OF THE WINDFIELD MADE IT THE REASON IT WAS SO STRONG.  Hurricane-force winds extended out 200 miles from the center, and that kind of cumulative energy produces a greater build-up. Ike was a Major, and so was Gustav, for instance.

Here is something that drives home my point. Take Charley, 2004  at cat 4 at landfall. That storm was not nearly as widespread as Ian, a cat 4 at landfall. (I assume the 160 was not at landfall since peak gusts were around 140).   But how about Donna?

Hurricane winds are extending out 150 miles to the east.  And what of the 1944 hurricane, which is a stand-alone storm as far as size?  So, if we want to look at these things objectively, it is time to get rid of Saffir Simpson as it is now and simply use it as a base. It was a fine base, but interestingly enough, it is the climate change people who are pushing this message that things are getting worse and demand we upgrade all this so we can put all this in perspective.

So, let’s do this and see what is what.

Ida was no Betsy, for instance, though both were cat 4s.

Harvey was no Carla, though both cat 4s.

It works the other way, too, as there are storms that will be seen as greater if we get more descriptive.

Here is the other thing to remember. All these rapid, in-close deepeners since 2017 have occurred in phase 2 or 3 of the Madden Julian Oscillation. That makes sense, given that correlation. But every major long-tracked storm that has reached the US has hit weaker than its peak over the Atlantic! Unlike the 30s-50s, few storms that are majors more than two days away hit as majors. The exception to all this is Irma, who did cross the Keys as a major but once she made it to Naples, she was less.

I have been pushing for this since the hurricane season of 2008. It was Bill O’Reilly who put this in my head. I was doing a hit with him when Ike was coming, and they had lowered it to a cat 2, and he said, “So it’s not that bad”. (Not Bill’s fault; it’s just the perception based on a faulty scale.) That set me off, so that is what got me going on this power and impact idea. If we look at Wikipedia, we see Weatherbell.com is never included, yet we have been pioneering the impact forecasts since I got here. And I am sure that over the coming years, you will see that we are forced to change this scale because there is simply too much propaganda now associated with it as far as trying to make climate points. So, some good will come out of it.

By the way, for all the hullabaloo about the  Atlantic, what about the lack of activity relative to averages in the number one Tropical cyclone basin on the planet, the Western Pacific? Surely, that has as much or more to do with climate observations since, on average, there is more bang for the buck.

One thing you can bet on is that we will never be mentioned. Look at it this way: It will be a windfall for hurricane researchers as they will have to go back and reanalyze all these storms. But I am sure it will never have the company’s name attached to it, as perhaps a seed for whatever idea they come up with. This is fine as long as it gets done so we get more objective and have a greater perspective.

While I have you here, there is no change from our December 7  Hurricane Season from Hell idea.  

https://www.weatherbell.com/hurricane-season-from-hell-first-look 

This issue will become a huge propaganda point for the Biden administration to use, and, as usual, there is no urgency to set up plans to counter what will be an onslaught of misinformation to sway voters. The punching bag mentality continues as we sit there and never proactively seize the high ground on this matter (are you listening, RNC?).

So despite one of the leading neanderthal climate denying skeptics (me as described in a montage of leftist terms) getting way out in front, so my clients are ready, there is no urgency to develop plans to be ready to counter what is coming as far as the hysteria over something that is natural and, if even half correct, was seen almost a year away.

UAH February 2024: SH Saves Global Warming

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.  It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition.  Yes, there has been warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.  

As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022  At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Now we have an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, but unrelated to steadily rising CO2.

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~60 ppm, a 15% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

gmt-warming-events

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And now in 2023 we are seeing an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, with some cooling the last two months. 

Update August 3, 2021

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT

See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

February 2024 SH Warming Overcomes Cooling Elsewhere

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995.  Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into October, but with cooling since. 

UAH has updated their tlt (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for February 2024. Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month comes just afer updated records from HadSST4.  I posted yesterday on SSTs using HadSST4 Ocean Cools as El Nino Recedes February 2024. This month also has a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes.  November 2023 was notable for a dichotomy between Ocean and Land air temperatures in UAH dataset. Remarkably a new high for Ocean air temps appeared with warming in all regions, while Land air temps dropped with cooling in all regions.  As a result the Global Ocean and Land anomaly result remained little changed. Last month in February 2024, both ocean and land air temps went higher driven by SH, while NH and the Tropics cooled slightly, resulting in Global anomaly matching October 2023 peak.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.  In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6 which are now posted for February.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.

Note 2020 was warmed mainly by a spike in February in all regions, and secondarily by an October spike in NH alone. In 2021, SH and the Tropics both pulled the Global anomaly down to a new low in April. Then SH and Tropics upward spikes, along with NH warming brought Global temps to a peak in October.  That warmth was gone as November 2021 ocean temps plummeted everywhere. After an upward bump 01/2022 temps reversed and plunged downward in June.  After an upward spike in July, ocean air everywhere cooled in August and also in September.   

After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, all regions were into negative territory. Note the Tropics matched the lowest value, but since have spiked sharply upward +1.7C, with the largest increases in April to July, and continuing through adding to a new high January 2024. NH also spiked upward to a new high, while Global ocean rise was more modest due to slight SH cooling.  Now in February, NH and Tropics have cooled slightly, while greater warming in SH resulting in a small Global rise.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for February is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  Land temps are dominated by NH with a 2021 spike in January,  then dropping before rising in the summer to peak in October 2021. As with the ocean air temps, all that was erased in November with a sharp cooling everywhere.  After a summer 2022 NH spike, land temps dropped everywhere, and in January, further cooling in SH and Tropics offset by an uptick in NH. 

Remarkably, in 2023, SH land air anomaly shot up 2.1C, from  -0.6C in January to +1.5 in September, then dropped sharply to 0.6 in January 2024, matching the SH peak in 2016. Now in February SH anomaly jumped up nearly 0.4C, pulling up the Global land anomaly despite continuing cooling elsewhere.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly Global anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.04, for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed

With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016.  December and January were down slightly, and now February is matching the October peak. Where it goes from here, up or down further, remains to be seen, though there is evidence that El Nino is weakening.

The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST3, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming has not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.

‘Trust science’, Paris mayor boasts as city declares ‘there will be no air conditioning in Olympic athletes’ rooms ‘to cut the carbon footprint’ of summer Olympics

There will be no air conditioning in the athletes’ rooms at Paris 2024, which has pledged to host the “greenest ever” Games.

From Climate Depot

By Marc Morano

Reuters – March 14, 2024: There will be no air conditioning in the athletes’ rooms at Paris 2024, which has pledged to host the “greenest ever” Games. … Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo told those nations planning on installing air conditioning at the athletes’ village to “trust the science” instead… With climate scientists warning that global warming has produced more extreme weather patterns in much of the world, organisers of Paris 2024 have said they want to halve the carbon footprint compared with the Rio 2016 and London 2012 Summer Games. “I think we have to trust science on two counts. The first is what scientists are telling us about the fact that we are on the brink of a precipice. Everyone, including the athletes, must be aware of this,” said Hidalgo. “And secondly, we have to trust the scientists when they help us to construct buildings in a sober way that allows us to make do without air conditioning.” ..

Yet, the Olympic Committees from Australia, Brazil, Canada and Norway are among those who believe it will not be enough.

“Our clear wish is that there should be air-conditioning in all rooms,” the Norwegian Committee told Reuters, with Brazil saying “the heat forecast” made it “necessary to invest in renting air-conditioning units for the entire delegation”.

Associated Press in 2023: The Paris Olympics is going underground to find a way to keep athletes cool at the 2024 Games without air conditioners…The decision is part of the organizing committee’s goal to cut the carbon footprint of the Paris Games by half and stage the most sustainable Olympics to date by installing a special technology to use natural sources to keep everyone cool even during a potential heat wave. Compared to a conventional project, the carbon impact will be reduced by 45% for the Athletes Village during the construction phase and over the entire Olympic cycle, she said. …

The geothermal energy system will ensure that the temperature in the athlete apartments in the Seine-Saint-Denis suburb does not rise above 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit) at night, including during a potential a heat wave, said Laurent Michaud, the director of the Olympic and Paralympic Villages. … “Despite outdoor temperatures reaching 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit), we had temperatures at 28 degrees (82 degrees Fahrenheit) in most of these rooms,” Michaud told The Associated Press, detailing the results of a heatwave simulation. … To keep the coolness inside, the athletes will have to follow some basic rules, he added, including making sure the window blinds are shut during the day. … Although some Olympic hopefuls have already expressed concern about the lack of air conditioning, Monnet said athletes should adapt and help contribute to fight against climate change. “We need athletes to set an example when they use the buildings,” Monnet said. “We can build the most virtuous village we want, it is also the use that will be made of it that will weigh on our carbon footprint.” …

Allow only AC in very limited circumstances: “It will be on a case-by-case basis, and for health and safety of the athletes,” Michaud said, adding that ventilators vaporizing water droplets could be installed instead of traditional air conditioning units.

Related flashback links: 

NYT: Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?

Wash. Post writer: ‘I don’t need air conditioning, and neither do you’ – ‘A/C made Americans greedy and silly’ – Touts ‘lower carbon footprint’ 

Discovery Mag.: ‘Is Air Conditioning Killing the Planet?’

Time Magazine: How to fix the ‘air conditioning problem’ – ‘Terrible for Planet’ – Promotes ‘public cooling centers’ – ‘Re-orient ourselves to meaning of air-conditioning’

Spain Decrees Energy Austerity With Air Conditioning Limits – Set AC no lower than 81 F

You Peasants Will Overheat & Be Happy: Biden admin to to Crack Down on Air Conditioning to Fight Global Warming – Will Cut HFC Consumption by 40% in Next 4 Years

Uncool: Biden Pushes Senate to Ratify Treaty That Would Raise Cost of Air Conditioning

Green New Deal in Action! ‘Businesses in Spain have to keep summer air conditioning above 80 degrees F under new govt rules’

Spain Decrees Energy Austerity With Air Conditioning Limits – Set AC no lower than 81 F

https://apnews.com/article/olympics-paris-2024-air-conditioning-climate-change-78b47a6f1bf0e1fcae9889cce9debcd9

BY BARBARA SURK AND SAMUEL PETREQUIN

Published 11:42 AM EDT, March 20, 2023

The Paris Olympics is going underground to find a way to keep athletes cool at the 2024 Games without air conditioners.

Organizers are planning to use a water-cooling system under the Athletes Village — much like the one that has helped the Louvre Museum cope with the sweltering heat that broke records last year — to keep temperatures in check for the Olympians and Paralympians who stay there.

The decision is part of the organizing committee’s goal to cut the carbon footprint of the Paris Games by half and stage the most sustainable Olympics to date by installing a special technology to use natural sources to keep everyone cool even during a potential heat wave.

“I want the Paris Games to be exemplary from an environmental point of view,” said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who has resolved to tackle climate change with an ambitious action plan that aims to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the City of Lights carbon neutral by 2050.

Compared to a conventional project, the carbon impact will be reduced by 45% for the Athletes Village during the construction phase and over the entire Olympic cycle, she said.

For two months between July and September 2024, the Athletes Village north of Paris will host 15,600 athletes and sports officials during the Olympics and 9,000 athletes and their supporting teams during the Paralympics. After the games, the 50-hectare (125-acre) site next to the River Seine in the popular district of Seine-Saint-Denis will become a zero-carbon, eco-friendly residential and commercial neighborhood with 6,000 new inhabitants — the first ones moving in as soon as 2025.

In anticipation of hot weather, organizers have been studying heatwaves block by block in the Athletes Village. They have simulated conditions in the parts of the accommodation most exposed to the sun and have tested the effectiveness of the cooling system with an objective to keep the indoor temperature between 23 and 26 degrees Celsius (73 and 79 degrees Fahrenheit).

The geothermal energy system will ensure that the temperature in the athlete apartments in the Seine-Saint-Denis suburb does not rise above 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit) at night, including during a potential a heat wave, said Laurent Michaud, the director of the Olympic and Paralympic Villages.

He said organizers have conducted tests in rooms that are located on the highest floors of the residences and are facing south and exposed to direct sun on two sides. They also considered directions of winds in the region and the water temperature in the Seine. They have worked closely with France’s national weather agency to develop temperature forecasts.

“Despite outdoor temperatures reaching 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit), we had temperatures at 28 degrees (82 degrees Fahrenheit) in most of these rooms,” Michaud told The Associated Press, detailing the results of a heatwave simulation. “In other rooms, we clearly had lower temperatures.”

In addition to the underfloor cooling, the insulation built into the buildings will enable residents to keep the cold obtained during the night throughout the day, Michaud said. To keep the coolness inside, the athletes will have to follow some basic rules, he added, including making sure the window blinds are shut during the day.

Laurent Monnet, who is in charge of the green transition at Saint-Denis City Hall, Paris’ northern suburb where the main Olympic Village will be located, said all rooms should be 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the outside temperature, without an AC unit. Although some Olympic hopefuls have already expressed concern about the lack of air conditioning, Monnet said athletes should adapt and help contribute to fight against climate change.

“We need athletes to set an example when they use the buildings,” Monnet said. “We can build the most virtuous village we want, it is also the use that will be made of it that will weigh on our carbon footprint.”

Eliud Kipchoge, a two-time Olympic champion and marathon world record holder, endorsed the Paris sustainability plan. The Kenyan is one the sport’s most vocal proponents of environmental justice and has repeatedly sounded the alarm on climate change and the impact of global warming.

“It’s a good thought, because we all need to reduce our carbon,” Kipchoge said in an interview with the AP.

He called on fellow athletes to help combat climate change by reducing their carbon impact during competition, training and their lives in general because “we are all going to go through the same scenario.”

Paris organizers have been in touch with national Olympic committees and said they will have the option of setting up their own AC units in specific cases and on condition that the devices comply with the organizing committee’s technical criteria.

Most national Olympic officials have responded to the plans to keep their athletes cool during the Paris Games with a wait-and-see attitude. Some Olympic officials are not excluding bringing their own air conditioners to France — or paying for one on the spot — depending on the weather at the time.

The Australian Olympic Committee said it will keep an eye on the weather patterns in Paris over the coming year to ensure “the optimal high-performance environment for our athletes, including heat and humidity mitigation that may be required.”

Michaud, the director of the Olympic Village, said organizers want to be kind to the environment, but not endanger the health of athletes. Some athletes, especially in Paralympic events, have difficulty regulating their body’s core temperature and if they reside in rooms in which it proves impossible to keep at 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit) at night, national delegations will be able to install a portable AC system.

“It will be on a case-by-case basis, and for health and safety of the athletes,” Michaud said, adding that ventilators vaporizing water droplets could be installed instead of traditional air conditioning units.

Hidalgo, the Paris mayor, is adamantly against turning next year’s event into the bring-your-own-air-conditioning Olympics — health exceptions aside.

“I can assure you that we will not change course and that there will be no changes to the construction program of the village regarding air conditioning,” Hidalgo said.

Regarding the option of organizers providing national teams with an additional cooling mechanism, she said: “I am not in favor of it. We must be consistent with our objectives.”

___

fg

Reuters – March 14, 2024: There will be no air conditioning in the athletes’ rooms at Paris 2024, which has pledged to host the “greenest ever” Games. … Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo told those nations planning on installing air conditioning at the athletes’ village to “trust the science” instead… With climate scientists warning that global warming has produced more extreme weather patterns in much of the world, organisers of Paris 2024 have said they want to halve the carbon footprint compared with the Rio 2016 and London 2012 Summer Games. “I think we have to trust science on two counts. The first is what scientists are telling us about the fact that we are on the brink of a precipice. Everyone, including the athletes, must be aware of this,” said Hidalgo. “And secondly, we have to trust the scientists when they help us to construct buildings in a sober way that allows us to make do without air conditioning.” ..

Yet, the Olympic Committees from Australia, Brazil, Canada and Norway are among those who believe it will not be enough.

“Our clear wish is that there should be air-conditioning in all rooms,” the Norwegian Committee told Reuters, with Brazil saying “the heat forecast” made it “necessary to invest in renting air-conditioning units for the entire delegation”.

Associated Press in 2023: The Paris Olympics is going underground to find a way to keep athletes cool at the 2024 Games without air conditioners…The decision is part of the organizing committee’s goal to cut the carbon footprint of the Paris Games by half and stage the most sustainable Olympics to date by installing a special technology to use natural sources to keep everyone cool even during a potential heat wave. Compared to a conventional project, the carbon impact will be reduced by 45% for the Athletes Village during the construction phase and over the entire Olympic cycle, she said. …

The geothermal energy system will ensure that the temperature in the athlete apartments in the Seine-Saint-Denis suburb does not rise above 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit) at night, including during a potential a heat wave, said Laurent Michaud, the director of the Olympic and Paralympic Villages. … “Despite outdoor temperatures reaching 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit), we had temperatures at 28 degrees (82 degrees Fahrenheit) in most of these rooms,” Michaud told The Associated Press, detailing the results of a heatwave simulation. … To keep the coolness inside, the athletes will have to follow some basic rules, he added, including making sure the window blinds are shut during the day. … Although some Olympic hopefuls have already expressed concern about the lack of air conditioning, Monnet said athletes should adapt and help contribute to fight against climate change. “We need athletes to set an example when they use the buildings,” Monnet said. “We can build the most virtuous village we want, it is also the use that will be made of it that will weigh on our carbon footprint.” …

Allow only AC in very limited circumstances: “It will be on a case-by-case basis, and for health and safety of the athletes,” Michaud said, adding that ventilators vaporizing water droplets could be installed instead of traditional air conditioning units.

#

Nuclear Subsidies Galore …

The U.S. nuclear industry in recent days has hit three cherries on the federal money-and-policy slot machine.

Nuclear power stations in the United States, 3D rendering isolated on white background

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

“The House bill [H.R. 6544] would also extend the Price-Anderson federal accident insurance subsidy, first enacted in 1957 and renewed seven times since then. The program expires at the end of 2025. It isn’t clear why this federal subsidy for nuclear in still needed when the industry insists its new, advanced reactor designs are ‘inherently’ walk-away safe.”

The U.S. nuclear industry in recent days has hit three cherries on the federal money-and-policy slot machine. The open question is whether the largess (some might call it pork) will have the intended results: revitalizing a moribund industry by hitching its wagon to the feverish fear of climate change and long-run animosity toward nuclear rivals China and Russia.

First, the money–the most tangible of the goodies Congress and the White House have doled out. On March 5, the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees rolled out a consensus on six money balls, including the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies bill funding all government nuclear programs for fiscal year 2024. Passage is almost certainly a done deal.

For nuclear, the bill includes the following radioactive goodies:

  • $1.685 billion for Department of Energy nuclear R&D, including a priority for microreactors and accident tolerant fuel. This is a $212 million increase over 2023 funding.
  • $2.72 billion in repurposed supplemental emergency funding for a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) program for advanced reactor fuel development. This is aimed specifically at Russia (the only significant current supplier of HALEU).
  • $280 million for an assortment of nuclear programs, such as $16 million for hydrogen produced from nukes and $137 million for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

House Legislation Passed (H.R. 6544)

The above Treasury payments followed policy victories for the nukes, including legislation and a new regulatory program.

On February 28, the House by an overwhelming  365-36 bipartisan margin passed H.R. 6544, designed to streamline safety reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and give the Department of Energy some authority to buy electricity through purchase power agreements from commercial nuclear power purveyors.

In some respects, the legislation is a return to the approach of the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission in the early days of atomic energy. In 1974, Congress abolished the AEC, and the all-power congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in large part because the AEC viewed reactor safety as a poor cousin to promotion the atom.

The language in the House bill, as described by the Hogan Lovells law firm, would require the NRC to revise it mission statement

to ensure that, while upholding the policies of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the licensing and regulation of nuclear activities are carried out efficiently without unduly restricting the potential of nuclear energy and to improve the general welfare and the benefits of nuclear technology to society.”

Some observers have suggested this hortatory language is unlikely to survive in the Senate. Senators are trying to combine House provisions with a separate bipartisan bill that passed last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act but was later axed.

The legislation would also create a cadre of up to 210 Supergrade nuclear ninjas, possibly paid more than NRC commissioners in some cases. According to the bill language, under some circumstances, the NRC chairman Chairman “may, during any period when such a certification is in effect, fix the compensation for such employees or other personnel serving in a covered position without regard to any provision of title 5, United States Code, governing General Schedule classification and pay rates.” These alleged experts appear to have the power to second-guess the Senate-confirmed commissioners.

The House bill would also extend the Price-Anderson federal accident insurance subsidy, first enacted in 1957 and renewed seven times since then. The program expires at the end of 2025. It isn’t clear why this federal subsidy for nuclear in still needed when the industry insists its new, advanced reactor designs are “inherently” walk-away safe. Congress apparently believes it can assess the risks of nuclear energy more accurately than private sector actuaries.

Regulatory Favor

Then there is the third cherry on the governmental slot machine: regulation.

On March 4, the NRC rejected a staff-written draft rule developed over three years for how to regulate the potential new license applications for a variety of advanced reactors. The commission told the staff to rewrite its proposal for a new “Part 53” section of the agency’s authority embodied in 10 Code of Federal Regulations, joining the current sections 50 and 52, which pertain to large light-water reactors.

According to Utility Dive, a key change ordered by the commission “rejected ‘a strict checklist of requirements’ for probabilistic risk assessments while favoring a more flexible framework suited to simplified reactor designs with passive safety features that utilize natural forces, such as gravity or pressure differentials, rather than operator action.”

In a news release, NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson said, “This proposed rule leverages significantly more risk insights than our existing regulatory framework in making safety determinations. Applicants can use our existing regulations today, but this proposed rule will provide future nuclear developers a clear, additional pathway for licensing.” The NRC said it expects to publish the new rule in the Federal Register in about six months.

Legacy of Failure

This latest effort to revive the largely stagnant U.S. nuclear program is the third time in the last nearly 20 years that the government has tried to pump new life into atomic power. The U.S. program started grinding to a halt in the mid-1970s and was barely treading water by the 1990s. The pipeline of new reactor licenses emptied in 1974, and as the final builders of plants under construction either completed or abandoned their projects, the workforce and supply chain infrastructure hollowed out.

In 2005, Congress passed a new “Energy Policies Act,” which offered a smorgasbord of financial goodies for new plants including loans (they called them “loan guarantees” to make them look more palatable to opponents of direct federal subsidies, but the Treasury wrote the checks and received the loan payments), cost overrun protections, and extension of Price-Anderson to 2025.

The 2005 act was largely a failure. The two preeminent U.S. nuclear power developers, Westinghouse and General Electric, ended up sorely financially injured and in Japanese hands. Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford commented, “They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance.”

Then came the first push for “small modular reactors,” designed to downsize the financial risks and construction costs of nuclear power plants. The strategy was the reverse of the “economies of scale” that drove the first generation of nuclear power plants, where bigger was always assumed to be better, but wasn’t.

In 2009, reactor vendor Babcock & Wilcox, which had substantial experience building nuclear power plants for U.S. submarines, announced it would offer a 125-MW pressurized water reactor (later scaled up to 180 MW) and a year later unveiled an alliance with builder Bechtel Corp. They called the project mPower.

In 2012, the Obama administration announced a $500 million program for development of small modular reactors. In 2013, mPower won financial assistance from DOE, with an award up to around $126 million. The same year, B&W tried and failed to sell a majority share of mPower, then cut back funding by 75%. Bechtel soon soured on the project, and it officially ran out of steam in 2017 after failure to find a customer.

During the same time frame, Westinghouse launched a 225-MW small modular reactor program. It quickly cratered, as the Pittsburgh-based company was unable to find a customer for its machines.

Will the latest government attempt to revive nuclear, driven by global warming concerns, succeed? It’s not a given. There’s lots to like about smaller nukes. They produce no CO2, have a relatively small footprint, can be sited fairly close to load.

But the economics aren’t clear, as the NuScale saga demonstrates. Some of the non-LWR advanced reactor designs will present licensing challenges, as there is little history behind them. Sodium cooled fast reactors may be particularly problematic, given the well-known problems of sodium as a coolant and the experience with Superphenix in France and Monju in Japan, plus issues of nuclear weapons proliferation.

———————-

This revised post originally appeared at The Quad Report.

Shell Backtracks On Emission Reduction Targets

Of course, as we know, there was no legally binding agreement at Paris to cut emissions – the actual text even acknowledged that emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t idau

Oil and gas (O&G) giant Shell has scaled back its 2030 and 2035 emission reduction targets, indicating that it expects the globe to fail the Paris Climate Agreement.

The landmark Paris Climate Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change signed by 196 parties, requires the world to almost halve emissions this decade.

Detailed within Shell’s Energy Transition Strategy 2024 report, the O&G company has lowered its emissions reduction targets from a 20% reduction to 15-20% by 2030. Shell has also “retired” its emissions reduction targets of 45% by 2035.

Shell initially set its emissions reduction targets based on its Net Carbon Impact (NCI) metric, which compares emissions to a 2016 baseline. It is worth noting that the company still maintains its target to cut emissions by 100% by 2050.

Shell is not the first O&G giant to have slashed its reduction targets, with BP also slashing its 2030 emissions reduction target from a 35-40% reduction to 20%-30%, compared with 2019 levels, in 2023. This was due to the firm’s commitment to increasing oil production to bolster energy security.

“With this backtrack, Shell bets on the failure of the Paris Climate Agreement, which requires almost halving emissions this decade,” responds Mark van Baal, founder of activist shareholder group Follow This. “Only Shell’s shareholders can change the board’s mind by voting for our climate resolution at the shareholders’ meeting in May.

“This backtracking removes any doubt about Shell’s intentions: the company wants to stay in fossil fuels as long as possible. The board not only endangers the global economy by exacerbating the climate crisis but also puts the company’s future at risk through policy interventions, disruptive innovation, stranded assets, and accountability for the costs of climate change.”

https://www.current-news.co.uk/shell-bets-on-paris-climate-agreement-failure-with-scaled-back-emission-reduction-targets

Of course, as we know, there was no legally binding agreement at Paris to cut emissions – the actual text even acknowledged that emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.

The silly activist investor, Mark van Baal, can stamp his little feet as much as he wants; but economic reality will always win out in the end.