Day: May 22, 2024

The Guardian is Confused, 1.5°C of Warming is Not Catastrophic

A recent article at The Guardian, “Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look like,” claims that 1.5°C of warming, while not the end of the world, still will have many catastrophic effects on the planet, including the death of tropical corals, intense storms, and ice sheet collapse. This is false. There is no evidence that 1.5°C will have any of these effects, this is mere fearmongering.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article at The Guardian, “Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look like,” claims that 1.5°C of warming, while not the end of the world, still will have many catastrophic effects on the planet, including the death of tropical corals, intense storms, and ice sheet collapse. This is false. There is no evidence that 1.5°C will have any of these effects, this is mere fearmongering.

The article is somewhat confused in its presentation, claiming at once that passing the 1.5°C limit will lead to “catastrophic heatwaves, floods, and storms,” while also saying it is not a “cliff-edge leading to a significant change in climate damage.” Catastrophe certainly sounds like “significant change,” and later comments further confuse the point. It’s important to note that, according to the E.U.’s climate and weather agency Copernicus, the average annual temperature has already exceeded 1.48°C the pre-industrial benchmark. Also, data from the longest continuously running temperature network indicates that Europe has already exceeded a 2.0℃ temperature rise with no appreciable negative climate impacts.

In an interactive graphic in the center of the article, the 1.5°C warming “benchmark” is claimed to be the point at which “heatwaves and storms intensify, tropical corals die off and tipping points for ice sheet collapse and permafrost thawing may be triggered.”

There are no citations or sources given for these claims. Luckily, Climate Realism has dug into the available data in previous posts on all of the mentioned subjects.

Regarding the 1.5°C warming claim, scientists have admitted that the value is arbitrary and political, and was not settled upon based on scientific or data-driven reasoning. The fact of the matter is, as discussed in “Reason is Right, There is No ‘Climate Cliff’,” that threshold was developed in the 90s by an 11-member German political “advisory board,” only one of whom was a meteorologist. The panel’s stated goal was to find a way to preserve the state of the Earth in its current form at the time, which is of course impossible in a dynamic system that is influenced not only by human activity but also by things well outside our control and ability, like space weather and tectonics.

There is no evidence showing that storms are getting worse, from tropical cyclones to drought, no climate signal is visible despite the warming of the past hundred-plus years. In regards to heatwaves, many recent media-promoted record-breaking heat spell claims have been shown to most likely to be a artifact of the Urban Heat Island effect due to the proximity to urbanization, which skews results much hotter than they otherwise would have been. In the United States at least, where a good reliable record exists, average temperature anomalies have not been on an upward trajectory. In fact, the worst recorded heatwaves occurred in the 1930s. (See figure below)

As Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heatwaves explains, “the lion’s share of the Earth’s modest warming occurs during winter, at night, and closer to the poles.”

The coral reef death claim is particularly strange, especially since far from dying off, corals in locations that previously suffered bleaching like the Great Barrier Reef are at their highest extent ever right now despite (or perhaps because of) recent warming. Corals arose, evolved, survived, and thrived when global average temperatures were much higher than they are today. There is no reason to think this trend would suddenly reverse with another 0.02 degrees warming. The empirical data rebuts this claim so thoroughly, it’s a wonder The Guardian would try to slip it by.

The ice sheets likewise do not appear to be on the verge of collapse. Several posts at Climate Realism (here, here, here, for samples) demonstrate that, while a short-term decline polar ice loss in the arctic occurred at the beginning of the 21st century, sea ice extent has largely stabilized since then. The previous decline  is hardly alarming, and definitely did not provide evidence for or presage an imminent total collapse. Two-time Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report Expert Reviewer Dave Burton pointed out in “Media Regurgitates Nonsense About Greenland Ice Cap and Sea Level Rise,” that hysteria over Greenland melt ignores the facts on the ground, that is, it’s way too cold to have a total ice loss in the region without a much more dramatic warming trend.

“Thanks to “Arctic Amplification,” Greenland should get more warming than most other places, but still no more than a few degrees,” Burton wrote. “That much warming would be nice for the hardy people who live there, but it could not melt the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet, because water has to get above 0°C to melt, and the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet averages much colder than that.”

Finally, the permafrost “tipping point” claim is also meritless. Predictions about the loss of northern permafrost have failed to materialize since at least 2005.

In a shameful display of science-free propaganda, The Guardian revealed it does not care at all about providing their readers with facts. It is quite simple to look up weather records and the current state of coral reefs. Instead, The Guardian chose to outsource their thinking to alarmist fearmongers, eschewing data for the drama of doomsday predictions. This is yet another instance of mainstream media outlets failing in their duty to responsibly and accurately inform the public concerning the true, unalarming, state of the planet.

Cambridge Professor Right to Slam Climate ‘Scientists’ Peddling Catastrophism

The world of climate science is in a terrible state. Riven with political activists claiming to be scientists, funded by green billionaires and state actors interested only in the Net Zero agenda, reported by blockhead mainstream journalists who believe science can be ‘settled’ – and increasingly being questioned by bored populations fed up with listening to year-after-year, decade-after-decade ‘Jim’ Dale-style claims of boiling and collapsing climates.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

The world of climate science is in a terrible state. Riven with political activists claiming to be scientists, funded by green billionaires and state actors interested only in the Net Zero agenda, reported by blockhead mainstream journalists who believe science can be ‘settled’ – and increasingly being questioned by bored populations fed up with listening to year-after-year, decade-after-decade ‘Jim’ Dale-style claims of boiling and collapsing climates. That is why the recent paper published in Nature by Cambridge Professor Ulf Buntgen has sent shock waves through a heavily-corrupted climate scientific community. At one point, Buntgen referred to the “ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes”. He argued that quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes, “undermines academic principles”.

Professor Buntgen is not a sceptic of the idea that humans control the climate by burning hydrocarbons. It is unlikely he would be published in a major journal like Nature if he was. But he is worried about climate scientists becoming activists by failing to work from actual observations. He is also worried about activists who pretend to be scientists. An excellent example of this can be found in the recent Guardian report that portrayed some of the hysterical claims of 380 “top scientists”. Billed as the views of writers of recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, a suitable response might have been ‘spot the scientist’.

The Cambridge geography professor observes that there is a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, “and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action”. Where to start on this one? There is overwhelming evidence that almost any scientific finding that casts doubt on humans controlling the climate thermostat will be ignored, and if that is unsuccessful, traduced or erased from mainstream view. In extreme cases, and certainly if the findings get any publicity, it might be necessary to put a billionaire-funded ‘fact’ checker on the case. A Guardian journalist helped get a science paper, Alimonti et al, retracted from a major journal because it cast observational doubt on claims of a climate emergency. Google has banned its ads from a page showing accurate satellite temperature on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims” of global readings. Less than curiously, the readings from this source happen to be generally lower than those produced by heat-corrupted surface readings. The state-influenced BBC has refused to discuss any sceptical view of the anthropogenic science opinion since at least 2018. Meanwhile, a UN communications official states that the world body “owns” climate science, and the world should know it.

Protected by the political and media class, the well-funded arrogance is off the scale. Buntgen notes that activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of “moral legitimisation” for their movements, which can be radical and destructive, rather than rational and constructive. “Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority”, he says. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory “is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public”, he added.

One well known activist who frequently claims ‘the science’ to shut down sceptical debate is the BBC broadcaster Chris Packham. Last year, he presented a number of Earth programmes that attempted to link past increases in carbon dioxide to rapid rises in temperature – all in the “terror” cause of drawing links with current and upcoming climate collapse. Alas, the ‘science’ shows that over 600 million years there is little or no link between rising CO2 and temperature. But Packham perfected the art of taking imprecise proxy data from the geological record – imprecise as in a margin of error of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years – and comparing it to accurate modern measurements. You can do that of course, but the BBC should surely be under an obligation to provide space for others to dispute the suggestions. No such obligation is evident, needless to say.

Buntgen finds it “misleading” when even prominent organisations, such as the IPCC, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2,000 and even 125,000 years. “The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st Century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before”, he observes. Happily, it didn’t stop Packham working back no less than 55 million years.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki was a highly-regarded geoscientist at the University of Alabama but he left academia last year noting that American universities, “are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas”. He said they would “punish” those who go against the narrative. Contributing to this, he noted, was the earth science communities silence on the false ‘climate emergency’ narrative. “Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out”, he disclosed.

For his part, Buntgen suggests that the ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only “creates confusion” among politicians, stakeholders and the wide public, but also “diminishes academic credibility”. 

Next time you see dopey crinklies attempting to smash the Magna Carta (avid listeners of BBC Radio 4, no doubt), consider that the ubiquitous ‘Daleification’ of climate catastrophe promotion might have gone just a bit too far.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor

The Cost of EPA’s Senseless CO₂ Capture

In April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency passed a new rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO₂ emissions.

From ClimateRealism

By Frits Byron Soepyan, originally published by Newsmax Money, here.

In April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency passed a new rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO₂ emissions.

How much would this cost? And is it worth it?

Well, as they say, we ran the numbers. Thankfully, researchers from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have provided the cost and performance estimates for retrofitting an existing coal power plant with Shell’s CANSOLV CO₂ capture system.

For the performance and cost estimates, I will use the NETL estimates for 90% carbon capture. (Here, I am using the term “carbon capture,” rather than “CO₂ capture,” because NETL uses the mass of carbon, rather than the mass of CO₂, in its calculations.)

Before the retrofit, NETL’s baseline coal power plant had a net output of 650 megawatts (MW). But after retrofitting it with the CO₂ capture system, the power output was reduced by 24% to 495 MW. In terms of money, the retrofit cost is about $988 million, or about $2 million/MW of net power output.

What do these numbers mean for the United States?

Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of March 2024, the United States has 148 coal power plants in operation in the electric utility sector, with an average capacity of about 139,000 MW. Of these, 36 plants plan to retire completely on or before December 2040 and 8 plants plan to retire at least one steam turbine on or before December 2034, but not entirely. Taking the difference of 148 and 36, there are 112 coal power plants in the United States without any planned retirement year, having a total average capacity of about 96,000 MW.

Using the NETL estimates, if we were to retrofit these 112 coal power plants to enable 90% carbon capture, the 24% net power output reduction would bring electricity production down to about 73,000 MW. Applying the retrofit cost of about $2 million/MW of net power output to the plants’ reduced power output, we arrive at a projected cost of about $146 billion.

Keep in mind, these estimates are only for coal power plants. We haven’t even gotten to retrofitting natural gas power plants, nor have we addressed the cost of replacing the tens of thousands of megawatts lost in the 24% production decrease of converted plants.

And what about constructing brand new natural gas power plants? How much would that cost?

Again, we turn to NETL for the estimates.

Using NETL’s baseline natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant, the numbers provided by NETL include a cost of about $1.05 billion to construct a new 992 MW plant without CO₂ capture and a cost of about $1.87 billion to construct a new 883 MW plant with 90% carbon capture. In other words, the 78% plant cost increase comes with an 11% net power output reduction.

So, we clearly are talking about a lot of money to remove most of the carbon dioxide from our American power plants fueled by fossil fuels. But is spending the extra money to capture CO₂ worth it?

Based on the analysis performed using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), theoretically, if the United States ceased all CO₂ emissions in 2010, the amount of warming averted would be only about 0.07 °F by 2050 and 0.19 °F by 2100. Such a temperature difference is negligible and can hardly be felt or measured.

Furthermore, in the United States in 2022, the CO₂ emissions from coal and natural gas amounted to about 0.93 and 1.74 billion metric tons, respectively, for a total of 2.67 billion metric tons. However, the total CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes amounted to 5.06 billion metric tons. This means that the CO₂ emissions from coal and natural gas contributed to only about 53% of the total emissions. Therefore, the temperature rise averted by stopping all CO₂ emissions from burning coal and natural gas becomes even smaller compared to the above estimates from MAGICC.

Finally, besides being expensive and futile, keep in mind: Plants need CO₂, along with sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to produce oxygen and food, both of which are essential for all living beings.

In fact, higher concentrations of CO₂ have enabled an increase in the growth, food production, water-use efficiency and drought resistance of plants, as well as the greening of Earth, as confirmed by NASA. According to NASA, 70% of this greening is attributed to “fertilization” by CO₂.

Given the critical role CO₂ plays in driving plant and crop growth, is spending over a hundred billion dollars to remove it from the air sensible? We think not.

Frits Byron Soepyan, a research and science associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia, has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Tulsa and has worked as a process systems engineer and a researcher in energy-related projects.

Originally published by Newsmax Money, here, reposted with permission.

The Inconvenient Truth About Copper: Implications for U.S. Electrification Goals

In the relentless pursuit of a greener future, copper stands as a critical element, central to the envisioned transition to renewable energy and electrification. However, recent insights bring to light a formidable obstacle: the rate of copper extraction is insufficient to meet the ambitious targets set by current U.S. policies. This blog post highlights this dilemma, as explained by the International Energy Forum’s (IEF) report, and examines the broader implications for energy policy and economic stability.

From Watts Up With That?

In the relentless pursuit of a greener future, copper stands as a critical element, central to the envisioned transition to renewable energy and electrification. However, recent insights bring to light a formidable obstacle: the rate of copper extraction is insufficient to meet the ambitious targets set by current U.S. policies. This blog post highlights this dilemma, as explained by the International Energy Forum’s (IEF) report, and examines the broader implications for energy policy and economic stability.

The Copper Conundrum

Copper is indispensable in the manufacture of electric vehicles (EVs) and the development of renewable energy infrastructure. The IEF report starkly presents the challenge:

“Electric vehicles (EVs) require substantially more copper and other metals than conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. For example, manufacture of an ICE automobile requires 24 kg of copper whereas manufacture of an EV requires 60 kg”​​.

https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-reports/copper-mining-and-vehicle-electrification#:~:text=To%20electrify%20the%20global%20vehicle,require%20negligible%20extra%20copper%20mining.

This statement alone encapsulates the monumental demand for copper driven by the push towards electrification. With policies mandating that 100% of cars manufactured be electric by 2035, the strain on copper supply becomes even more evident. The report quantifies this demand further:

“To meet business-as-usual trends, 115% more copper must be mined in the next 30 years than has been mined historically until now. To electrify the global vehicle fleet requires bringing into production 55% more new mines than would otherwise be needed”​​.

https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-reports/copper-mining-and-vehicle-electrification#:~:text=To%20electrify%20the%20global%20vehicle,require%20negligible%20extra%20copper%20mining.

Such figures underscore the vast amounts of copper necessary to achieve these electrification goals. The current mining capacity, however, does not align with this escalating demand.

Mining Realities and Economic Implications

The extraction and processing of copper are time-consuming and capital-intensive activities. Current production rates and available mining technology suggest that ramping up copper output to the required levels within the stipulated timelines is not feasible. The study’s findings suggest a significant shortfall in meeting the raw material needs for the electrification agenda:

“Under today’s policy settings for copper mining, it is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient additional new mines to achieve 100% EV by 2035. Policymakers might consider changing the vehicle electrification goal from 100% EV to 100% hybrid manufacture by 2035″​​.

https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-reports/copper-mining-and-vehicle-electrification#:~:text=To%20electrify%20the%20global%20vehicle,require%20negligible%20extra%20copper%20mining.

This revelation invites critical scrutiny of the underlying assumptions in policy frameworks that advocate for rapid and large-scale transitions to renewable energy. It also raises pertinent questions about the economic feasibility and long-term sustainability of such policies.

The Questionable Premise of a Green Future

The push for a green future is often presented as an inevitable and necessary path. However, this ideology-driven agenda lacks a solid foundation. The transition to renewable energy, while portrayed as essential, is fraught with practical challenges and economic burdens that are frequently overlooked or underestimated.

“Many have expressed concern that the lack of critical mineral resources may not allow full electrification of the global vehicle transportation fleet, and the vehicle electrification resource demand is just a small part of that needed for the transition”​​.

https://www.ief.org/focus/ief-reports/copper-mining-and-vehicle-electrification#:~:text=To%20electrify%20the%20global%20vehicle,require%20negligible%20extra%20copper%20mining.

The pursuit of sustainability has become a catchphrase devoid of critical examination. The supposed benefits of a green future are speculative at best, hinging on the unproven assumption that these efforts will significantly impact climate change. In contrast, the immediate and tangible costs—economic, social, and environmental—are substantial and often ignored.

Broader Policy and Strategic Considerations

Given the intrinsic link between copper supply and the any successful implementation of electrification policies, a reassessment of strategy is warranted. Policymakers need to consider several factors if they are going to go down this road:

  1. Diversification of Material Sources: Investing in research to find alternative materials that can either replace copper or reduce its use in key applications.
  2. Enhanced Recycling Programs: Implementing robust recycling systems to reclaim copper from obsolete electronics and other products, thereby easing the demand on primary copper mining.
  3. International Cooperation: Engaging in strategic partnerships with countries rich in copper resources to ensure a stable supply chain.
  4. Technological Innovation: Encouraging innovations in mining and processing technologies to increase the efficiency and output of copper extraction.

Environmental and Social Impact

The race to mine more copper also carries significant environmental and social costs. Increased mining activities can lead to environmental degradation, including deforestation, soil erosion, and contamination of water resources. Additionally, the social implications for communities in mining regions—often marked by displacement and health issues—must not be overlooked. Thus, a balance must be struck between meeting material needs and maintaining environmental and social standards.

Conclusion

The reality presented by the IEF report serves as a sobering reminder of the complexities inherent in transitioning to a greener economy. This situation highlights an ironic unforced error of poor planning and idealistic policy, driven by an optimistic yet impractical vision without fully considering the supply constraints of critical materials like copper. Moreover, the very premise of striving for a green future and sustainable development is itself an unfounded ideological pursuit, lacking in practical justification and burdened with significant costs.

As we navigate these challenges, it is imperative to maintain a balanced perspective, recognizing the need for realistic timelines and diversified approaches. The discourse around the frenetic, ill-conceived, and ideological fantasy of “climate policy” must evolve to incorporate these hard truths, ensuring that the path to so-called sustainability is both feasible and responsible—or reconsidered entirely in light of its dubious foundations.

The full report can be downloaded here

HT/Clyde Spencer

Mercedes and Volkswagen DITCH their EV ambitions! | MGUY Australia

Well, the initial slow drip of auto manufacturers walking away from their foolish EV promises has now turned into a flood.

From Watts Up With That?

MGUY Australia

Transcript

Well, the initial slow drip of auto manufacturers walking away from their foolish EV promises has now turned into a flood. Almost every week, you read of yet another automaker desperately backtracking on their electrification plans as the market dries up and sales plummet. The latest car makers to cave and back away from these mad electrification plans are Volkswagen and Mercedes, who have hedged their bets with more hybrids, allowing production of internal combustion engines to continue. There’s also more good news from Mercedes, which we’ll get to later in the video.

This isn’t rocket science. There’s a simple principle which these manufacturers should follow if they want to be successful: build the cars people want and to hell with what the government says. Welcome back to M-Guy, British engineer and lawyer, now Sydney-based YouTuber. Be sure to follow me on the usual socials for more content, links in the description, and there’s a code on screen; scan that with your phone if you want to sign up for an occasional M-Guy email. It’d be great to have you on board.

Bloomberg reports on how Volkswagen’s EV fantasy has just collided with reality. Volkswagen walks back EV or bus strategy that rankled rivals. CEO Oliver Blumer is turning to hybrids and striking partnerships as EV sales slow. Volkswagen AG’s all-in on electric vehicle plan is no more. The namesake VW brand, which pitched its ID family of electric cars as central to its future, admitted last week it will need more plug-in hybrids as EV sales decelerate. This marks just the latest adjustment VW has made to its electrification strategy after the company botched several model releases and fell behind in China, where local brands now dominate. The manufacturer has also shelved efforts to seek outside investors for its battery unit and scrapped plans for a 2 billion Euro ($2.2 billion) EV factory in Germany. In fact, the automaker is selling so many cars still running on combustion engines that it’s on track to overshoot its emissions allowance next year, leading Chief Executive Officer Oliver Blumer to ask European regulators for leniency.

It’s a sharp turnabout from only 3 years ago when VW’s aggressive lobbying for EVs in the European Union opened up rifts between the company and some of its peers in the region. Yep, give the punters what they want; works every time. But this is a far cry from VW’s posturing on electrification barely years ago. “Electric mobility has won the race,” D said when presenting VW’s battery strategy in 2021. Many in the industry questioned our approach; today they are following suit while we are reaping the fruit. Well, that fruit must be tasting pretty sour by now, if it isn’t completely rotten.

And Mercedes has dumped an entire EV platform after a woeful sale of its larger EV models. As Top Gear reports, Mercedes has reportedly cancelled an entire EV platform, and apparently, slow EV sales are to blame. Farewell, MBEA; we hardly knew you. Mercedes is putting the kibosh on the development of its MBEA large electric vehicle platform, having apparently been put off by the EQE and EQS’s slower than expected sales. OD Deia first reported by Handelsblut, the move will supposedly save billions in development costs as Mercedes rethinks its future luxury car strategy.

This is a big shift because the MBEA platform, which was due to be ready for 2028, was meant to bring several of the technologies previewed on the ultra-long range Vision EQXX to the table. Don’t expect 750 mi from a single charge anytime soon then. And Bloomberg again dives into why the EQS has been such a disaster for Mercedes. Why Mercedes’ $100,000 electric jelly bean flopped: The German automaker’s limousine customers care as much about comfort and status as saving the planet. Now they should worry about residual values too. When Mercedes-Benz Group unveiled a luxury electric sedan called the EQS in 2021, managers boasted about the radical aerodynamic design, billing it as the German automaker’s most significant launch in decades. Film director James Cameron and singer Alicia Keys were on hand to add their own superlatives for a vehicle that cost in excess of $100,000. “This concept car was inspired by the values of Avatar’s indigenous people, the Na’vi, who believe that we must not only limit what we take from nature but find ways to replenish what we use.” The all-new EQS is not just an impressive vehicle; it’s a commitment to a more balanced world.

Three years later, the electric version of the flagship S-Class risks becoming one of the biggest flops in Mercedes’ storied history, and its shortcomings have contributed to the company’s decision to ditch a goal of selling only electric vehicles by 2030. Sales of the luxury electric sedan declined 40% to just 14,100 units last year, according to Mercedes’ annual report. Price cuts in China and heavily discounted U.S. lease deals failed to revive demand while undermining the company’s strategy of prioritizing high values over sales volumes. Combustion engine S-Class deliveries were more than six times higher.

And the final piece of good news from Mercedes is that the ignominious slide of its once legendary AMG brand into abject mediocrity has been halted, at least for the time being. AMG started going downhill when Mercedes started applying the badge to ghastly little hatchbacks like the A45, and worst of all, applied the legendary C63 badge, which used to stand for a glorious 6.2 L naturally aspirated V8, on a pissy little 4-cylinder car with an electric motor—sacrilege. But the market has spoken, and for the upcoming CLLE 63 AMG is going back to the next best thing to the 6.2 L, the venerable 4 L twin turbo, which is about the best we can hope for in this mad net-zero climate. Mercedes AMG CL63 switches four-pot PH for 585 BHP V8. AMG lines up twin-turbo V8 power for upcoming super coupe amid slow sales for four-cylinder hybrid C63 H. Wonder why that would be?

The upcoming Mercedes AMG CL63 will receive a twin-turbocharged 4 L V8 petrol engine, developing up to 585 BHP, senior officials at the division’s Mercedes-Benz parent company have confirmed. The decision reverses an earlier plan to give the hot new coupe and cabriolet the same 670 BHP plug-in hybrid drivetrain as the latest C63 and GLC63, due to slow sales of the saloon, estate, and SUV, despite its class-leading performance. Traditional AMG buyers haven’t taken to the E Performance PHV drivetrain, which combines a turbocharged 2 L 4-cylinder petrol engine and a rear axle mounted electric motor—ghastly. I wouldn’t drive one if they paid me. I’d go and find a nice C63 Edition 507 coupe from 2012 or 2013, one of the most fun cars you could ever imagine when the 63 on the badge actually meant something.

Volkswagen and Mercedes aren’t the first automakers to get cold feet over their earlier ludicrous electrification promises in the face of clear market apathy, but we can be 100% sure of one thing: they won’t be the last.

HT/observa

Massive Utility Trade Group Reportedly Taking Biden Admin To Court Over Green Power Plant Rules

A massive trade group for utility companies is reportedly poised to sue the Biden administration over one of its most ambitious climate policies, according to E&E News.

From The Daily Caller

By NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

A massive trade group for utility companies is reportedly poised to sue the Biden administration over one of its most ambitious climate policies, according to E&E News.

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) — a trade group that represents all investor-owned utility companies in the U.S. — will soon file a legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized regulations for power plants, according to E&E News, which cited four unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter. The trade association did not sue the Obama administration when it promulgated its similar and since-overruled Clean Power Plan, but it is now taking a more confrontational posture to battle the Biden administration’s power plant rules.

The EPA finalized the regulations in question in April; the rules effectively require existing coal-fired plants and new natural gas plants to use costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to control 90% of emissions by 2032 if plant operators want to keep the covered facilities online past 2039, according to the agency. EEI reportedly plans to angle its lawsuit around the EPA’s reliance on CCS to meet emissions reductions targets, according to E&E News. (RELATED: ‘The Swamp Is Getting Deeper’: EPA Awards Billions From Biden’s Landmark Climate Bill To Orgs Loaded With Dem Insiders)

A spokesperson for EEI indicated that a decision about a lawsuit has not yet been made.

“EEI and our member companies continue our efforts to evaluate EPA’s final power plant rules and their impact on electricity customers,” a spokesperson for EEI told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We take all potential litigation decisions seriously and are still considering our options.”

Critics of the EPA’s power plant regulations — a group that includes some Biden administration officials — have pointed out that CCS is not close to ready to play the major role in the U.S. power grid that the agency envisions. Technologically, CCS is still in its early stages and not yet energy efficient, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, while other challenges, such as a major permitting backlog, persist.

“While we appreciate and support EPA’s work to develop a clear, continued path for the transition to cleaner resources, we are disappointed that the agency did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage,” EEI President and CEO Dan Brouillette said of the final regulations when they were made public in late April. “CCS is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment, nor is there sufficient time to permit, finance, and build the CCS infrastructure needed for compliance by 2032.”

EEI officials reportedly made the decision to sue on Thursday, but the organization has yet to formally announce that it is taking the federal government to court. More than two dozen Republican state attorneys general have already filed their own lawsuit against the rules.

The administration has hailed the rules as a major step toward decarbonizing the American power grid and wider economy in the coming decades, both of which are key goals of the Biden administration’s sweeping climate agenda. The agency has expressed confidence that the rules will be able to withstand incoming legal challenges and will not impact grid reliability when enacted, but power grid experts previously told the DCNF that the new policies are probably beyond the agency’s statutory authority and also likely to diminish grid reliability in the long-term.

EPA declined to comment, citing its policy of not weighing in on pending litigation.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include comment from EEI.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Oy, Now Climate Change Triggers Migraines

In a delightful exercise of creative scientific storytelling, we have a recent article suggesting that climate change is now responsible for triggering migraines. Yes, you read that correctly—climate change, the ultimate scapegoat, is now allegedly making our heads hurt. The claim, published by Dr. Shiv Sudhakar in NBC News, offers a fantastical leap of logic that’s as amusing as it is absurd. Let’s dive into this narrative and see why it’s a textbook example of non-causative correlation.

From Watts Up With That?

In a delightful exercise of creative scientific storytelling, we have a recent article suggesting that climate change is now responsible for triggering migraines. Yes, you read that correctly—climate change, the ultimate scapegoat, is now allegedly making our heads hurt. The claim, published by Dr. Shiv Sudhakar in NBC News, offers a fantastical leap of logic that’s as amusing as it is absurd. Let’s dive into this narrative and see why it’s a textbook example of non-causative correlation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/climate-change-may-linked-rising-migraine-severity-frequency-americans-rcna150868

The Comedy of Correlation

The article starts with a bold assertion: “Migraines are increasing in frequency and intensity among Americans: Could climate change be a reason?” It’s a classic case of correlation masquerading as causation. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean one causes the other. To illustrate, here are some other phenomena that have “increased” over the same period:

  1. The Stock Market: The Dow Jones has soared, reaching record highs over the past decades. Should we then conclude that higher stock prices cause migraines?
  2. Computer Speed: With processing speeds doubling every few years, perhaps faster CPUs are to blame for our pounding headaches.
  3. Use of Mobile Phones: The ubiquitous smartphone has taken over our lives. Clearly, this must be the real migraine culprit.
  4. Obesity Rates: As waistlines expand, so do the number of people complaining about migraines. Coincidence? I think not!
  5. Use of the Term “Racism”: The frequency of this term in public discourse has skyrocketed. Surely, social justice awareness is giving us migraines.
  6. Drop in Marriage Among Young People: Less matrimony, more migraines. Could the lack of wedding bells be the real issue here?
  7. Netflix Subscriptions: Binge-watching might be rotting our brains and causing headaches, right?
  8. Gluten-Free Diets: As more people cut out gluten, migraine reports have apparently increased. Is gluten the unsung hero against migraines?

More importantly according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no evidence that severe weather events have increased in frequency, except some modest belief in increased heat waves. If the frequency of extreme weather hasn’t demonstrably changed, then how exactly is climate change worsening migraines? It’s a correlation to a fantasy.

Page-90_-from-IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12Herunterladen

Weather or Not

The article eagerly points to “erratic and severe weather conditions” as potential migraine triggers, courtesy of climate change. Dr. Fred Cohen from Mount Sinai says, “As extreme weather events, like hurricanes, become more frequent and intense, they could be contributing to an increase in migraine attacks and their severity.” because nothing says “headache” like a hurricane.

Dr. Cohen might as well have added, “And as more people watch reality TV, the decline in cognitive ability is surely giving them migraines.” The beauty of such assertions is that they sound plausible enough to the uncritical ear but fall apart upon closer inspection.

Moreover, there’s a glaring omission of the many other, more plausible factors contributing to migraines. For instance, lifestyle changes such as increased screen time, stress from modern living, dietary changes, and lack of sleep are well-documented migraine triggers. But these mundane, everyday factors don’t generate the same sensational headlines as blaming the ever-mystical climate change.

The Clown Car of Neurological Diseases

To add to the hilarity, the article brings in British researchers warning that “extreme weather and heat fluctuations may aggravate neurological disorders such as stroke, dementia, and schizophrenia.” They claim that worsening climate conditions are likely to lead to “heightened attack frequency in people who already have migraines.” At this point, we’re just throwing the entire medical dictionary at climate change. What’s next? Acne? Bad hair days?

This article is a classic case of what happens when sensationalism trumps science. By drawing dubious links between climate change and migraines, it distracts from legitimate research into the real causes and treatments of migraines. It’s not just a disservice to science but to every migraine sufferer looking for genuine answers.

Let’s stop the madness of attributing every conceivable problem to climate change. If we want to address migraines—or any other medical condition—let’s focus on real, evidence-based research rather than indulging in the trendy blame game. Until then, we might as well blame climate change for our dog’s bad breath and the fact that the toast always lands butter-side down.

HT/Michael M (No, not hat Michael M)

Electric vehicle subsidies as complex and costly as ever

Electric vehicles (EVs) may be the most subsidized product in America. Federal taxpayers shell out $7,500 every time a new eligible electric vehicle is purchased (usually by wealthy buyers).

From CFACT

BY DAVID WILLIAMS:

Electric vehicles (EVs) may be the most subsidized product in America. Federal taxpayers shell out $7,500 every time a new eligible electric vehicle is purchased (usually by wealthy buyers). State and local taxpayers chip in an additional $1,500 for each EV purchase. Then, there are the tens of billions of dollars “invested” by policymakers into building EV plants. Even these bank-breaking concessions aren’t enough to please the Biden administration. Recently finalized EV tax credit rules expand eligibility for the subsidy while maintaining bizarre trade sourcing rules likely to lead to further tariffs from China. It’s time for President Biden and lawmakers to ditch protectionism and finally end EV subsidies.

From the start, President Biden’s fumbling approach to EV subsidies has harmed the economy without bolstering ecology. In 2022, the chief executive declared, “[t]hanks to American ingenuity, American engineers, American autoworkers… if you want an electric vehicle with a long-range, you can buy one made in America.” Prices were already through the roof, with taxpayers being asked to shoulder these pricy purchases. Kelley Blue Book estimates that the average price of a new EV is more than $65,000, compared to $48,000 for gas-powered cars. Biden imposed requirements that EVs must undergo “final assembly in North America,” contributing to even higher prices for taxpayers and consumers.

Biden’s rules make production cost-prohibitive by restricting the foreign mineral inputs (e.g., graphite) that could go into tax credit-eligible EVs. The administration has since reversed course and allowed for a grace period for graphite sourcing. However, the new rules“introduce a stricter test for measuring whether 50% of the vehicle’s critical minerals come from the United States or a free trade agreement partner…[requiring] automakers to more precisely account for the value added at each step of the supply chain.” The net effect of all these confusing new rules is to expand the number of vehicles eligible for EV tax credits while increasing compliance costs. And, of course, this cost will be passed on to taxpayers and consumers.

Instead of tethering absurd rules to a complex and costly program, the Biden administration should start from scratch and axe the tax credit. EV subsidies are showered onto the wealthiest Americans at the expense of their poorer neighbors. According to a 2023 analysis of California EV purchase patterns by the news outlet CalMatters, “Most of the median household incomes in the top 10 [zip codes with the highest share of EVs] exceed $200,000, much higher than the statewide $84,097. Typical home values in those communities exceed $3 million, according to Zillow estimates.” In comparison, “electric cars are nearly non-existent in California’s lowest income communities: only 1.4% of cars in Stockton’s 95202, where the median household income is $16,976, and 0.5% in Fresno’s 93701, where the median is $25,905. Most are plug-in hybrids, which are less expensive.” This study’s findings are consistent with earlier multi-state surveys. A 2018 study by Dr. Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute found that “79% of electric vehicle plug-in tax credits were claimed by households with adjusted gross incomes of greater than $100,000 per year. Households with incomes greater than $50,000 per year claimed 99% of the credits.”

This stunning regressivity ensures that subsidies are a net-negative for ecology. Wealthy Americans primarily purchase EVs as secondary cars, keeping them in the garage for occasional outings. EV owners are largely still using conventional cars, and there’s less-than-hoped-for substitution between gasoline and electricity. As a result, extra pollution is generated via increased EV production without corresponding decreases in driving emissions. One 2022 Harvard study suggests, “foregoing gasoline in favor of volts may actually increase, not lower, overall emissions in some cases.” This is far from the outcome envisioned by “green” activists and policymakers.

The Biden administration and lawmakers ought to seriously rethink adding more fuel to the dumpster fire of EV subsidies. Struggling Americans shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for these over-hyped toys for tycoons.

David Williams is the president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Study: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station Could be Powered by Renewables

Perhaps they should try powering a small part of the installation with a small number of wind turbines and solar panels, before they commit the entire facility to weather dependent energy sources.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

The diesel generator would only be needed for “backup”.

How the South Pole research station could run on 100% renewable energy

Joshua S Hill
May 15, 2024

American researchers have completed an analysis that demonstrates how renewable energy could almost completely replace diesel at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, resulting in millions of dollars in savings.

The analysis, published in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, was conducted by scientists at the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), some of whom have worked at the South Pole and wanted to understand if renewables could replace the use of diesel.

“All of the energy at the South Pole currently is generated by diesel fuel and a generator,” said Amy Bender, a physicist in Argonne’s High Energy Physics division, a corresponding author on the paper, and a scientist who has spent time working at the South Pole.

​“We were asking if it is possible to transition to renewables. This study is the beginning of trying to make that case.”

…Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-south-pole-research-station-could-run-on-100-renewable-energy/

The abstract of the study;

Techno-economic analysis of renewable energy generation at the South Pole

Author links open overlay panelSusan Babinec a, Ian Baring-Gould b, Amy N. Bender a, Nate Blair b, Xiangkun Li b, Ralph T. Muehleisen a, Dan Olis b, Silvana Ovaitt b

a Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Lemont, 60439, IL, USA
b National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, 80401, CO, USA

Highlights

  • •Renewable energy generation at the South Pole, Antarctica is explored.
  • •South Pole conditions require unique renewable technical design.
  • •South Pole renewable system possible with mature, commercially-available technology.
  • •Least-cost hybrid renewable system reduces annual diesel consumption by 95%.
  • •South Pole renewable energy creates positive economic impact across many scenarios.

Abstract

Transitioning from fossil-fuel power generation to renewable energy generation and energy storage in remote locations has the potential to reduce both carbon emissions and cost. This study presents a techno-economic analysis for implementation of a hybrid renewable energy system at the South Pole in Antarctica, which currently hosts several high-energy physics experiments with nontrivial power needs. A tailored model of resource availability and economics for solar photovoltaics, wind turbine generators, lithium-ion energy storage, and long-duration energy storage at this site is explored in different combinations with and without existing diesel energy generation. The Renewable Energy Integration and Optimization (REopt) platform is used to determine the optimal system component sizing and the associated system economics and environmental benefit. We find that the least-cost system includes all three energy generation sources and lithium-ion energy storage. For an example steady-state load of 170 kW, this hybrid system includes 180 kW-DC of photovoltaic panels, 570 kW of wind turbines, and a 3.4 MWh lithium-ion battery energy storage system. This system reduces diesel consumption by 95% compared to an all-diesel configuration, resulting in approximately 1200 metric tons of carbon footprint avoided annually. Over the course of a 15-year analysis period the reduced diesel usage leads to a net savings of 57 million United States dollars, with a time to payback of approximately two years. All the scenarios modeled show that the transition to renewables is highly cost effective under the unique economics and constraints of this extremely remote site.Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032123011322

I admire their optimism.

Perhaps they should try powering a small part of the installation with a small number of wind turbines and solar panels, before they commit the entire facility to weather dependent energy sources.

I guess if all else fails, they could always burn the lithium battery for warmth.

Update (EW): Mr Ed posted a fascinating video from 1962 about a nuclear reactor being delivered to McMurdo Station. Nuclear seems an obvious solution for such a remote location, but the harshness of the Antarctic environment was too much for the technology of the time. As Curious George pointed out, the reactor was plagued by problems, and was shut down in 1972. The reactor site was contaminated (there has been a number of radiation accidents during operation), so an expensive cleanup operation was required.

President of European Central Bank Says the Entire Economy and Financial System Requires Overhauling due to Climate Change

Don’t blame us when the economy crashes, says Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank (ECB), it was climate change wot dunnit.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Christine Lagarde can’t even be bothered to hide the globalists’ agenda now.

Don’t blame us when the economy crashes, says Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank (ECB), it was climate change wot dunnit.

The former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) took to the stage to petrify Europeans into complying – “Floods, droughts and wildfires last year were just a preview of what is to come”, she said in an almost threatening tone.

With the menacing warnings out of the way, Lagarde gives a brief insight into what the globalists have in store for us when the economy starts to implode. Climate change will be changing our economy and financial system, she tells us.

To ensure they retain control once the system fails, they have a cunning plan. She calls it the ‘new climate and nature plan’ because that sounds all fuzzy and warm – ‘returning the plebs to serfdom plan’ probably wouldn’t cut it.

The plan focusses on three things:

Full story here.