Cold Storage
Dec 05, 2019
Wind Turbines are Neither Clean nor Green and Provide Zero Global Energy

By Matt Ridley

image

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades - nay centuries - of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Matt Ridley and climate change campaigner Leo Murray debate the future of wind power:

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority - three quarters - is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’ sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and[a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low-density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines - killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands - is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal-mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which - thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing - are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

Spectator.co.uk/podcast
Matt Ridley discusses wind power

Nov 18, 2019
Growing Season Challenges from Start to Finish, Now Snow Season Kicks In

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Co-chief Meteorologist Weatherbell.com

Preliminary Weather Year in Review - A year of Extremes , Now Winter Snow Season Kicks in here. Complete Alarmist Claim Rebuttals (fact-checking the top 12 alarmist claims) here.

On average, it has been a cold year in the prime central growing areas

image

Growing degree days ran well behind normal.

image

The last 30 days were very cold with many record lows.

image

We have had 4,700 record lows the last 30 days, 17,190 this year-to-date, 17,870 the last 365 days (NOAA NCEI Record)

image

It was a very wet year in the central areas.

image
NWS Year-to-Date Precipitation Anomalies (inches)

See the departures in rainfall (inches) since April 1 when normally farmers are in the fields to prepare for planting or actually putting seed into the ground.

image

The average maximum temperatures in the primary corn and bean belt were below normal Note the century trend is flat.
image

As expected, corn yield forecasts are down, the first year below the trend line in 6 years.

image

Corn production is down and may fall further.

image

Soybean production was down below trend line and production was down more than corn.

image

image

There is still grain in the field. As of November 10, sixty-six percent of the 2019 acreage was harvested by week’s end, 17 percentage points behind last year and 19 points behind the 5-year average pace. Harvest progress was behind the average pace by 13 percentage points or more in ten of the 18 estimating states. Soybean harvest across the nation was 85 percent complete, 2 percentage points behind last year and 7 points behind the 5-year average.

Early snowcover slowed or stopped harvest.

image

A window has opened with warming after the killer cold for harvest in the central where there is something worth harvesting.

The next 5 days are warmer than normal.

image

It begins cooling days 5 to 10 and more so days 10 to 15.

image

image

It is wetter and snow will return across the northern states.

image

image
Flooded fields Illinois

image
Snow in Southern Canada on small grains (similar story into the
northern Plains on grains and field crops)

Nov 09, 2019
Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda

Dr. Ed Berry

image

Gretta snarls at you for using fossil fuels. Bill Gates, George Soros, and others pay to manage and promote Gretta because she inspires the brainwashed younger generation to accept junk science. She is reminiscent of the Joe Camel advertising that caused a large increase in youth smoking.

“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’”

In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.”

Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.

So, who are these people?

The public believes “climate change protesters” are climate experts. They believe those who “care about the environment” are climate experts. They believe Gretta is a climate expert.

Universities train students to be ecologists, environmentalists, climate activists, and socialists. These students graduate thinking they are climate experts. Governors appoint them to climate expert panels. The government gives them money. Congress, state legislatures, lawyers, and the media think these graduates are climate experts. Thus, they get the headlines. But they are not climate experts.

Climate change is a subject of physics. Without physics, there is no climate science. But who wants to study physics? It’s much easier to be a climate alarmist. Besides, that’s where the money is.

Here’s some basic science truth to help you decide who to believe about climate change.

First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.

Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day?

In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”

Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?

So, how does science work?

Glad you asked.

Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate.

Scientific truth is not decided by votes. No amount of evidence can prove a theory is true.

Yet, the promotion of that logical fallacy is at the basis of the claims that we are causing climate change and all the bad stuff that it makes happen.

Did you learn that in school?

I just finished writing another scientific paper. It proves human emissions do not cause climate change. All 11,000 who claim otherwise are wrong.

My focus on this paper kept me from writing to you every week as I like to do. Now, my preprint is finished, and I am free again to write to you again.

Why should you believe me versus all those who tell you we are causing climate change?

In high school, I scored a perfect 800 on the SAT exam while finishing in half the allotted time. I was accepted by Caltech, MIT, and Reed. I choose Caltech. Linus Pauling was among the fantastic teachers who taught me science and logic. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth College gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Then, the University of Nevada in Reno gave me a research fellowship in physics. My PhD mentors included William T. Scott and Friedwart Winterberg. Winterberg was known as the best student of Heisenberg, who was a Nobel Laureate in physics. Thirty years later, Winterberg said I was his best student. My theoretical PhD thesis was a significant breakthrough in climate physics that still gets many citations every year. Other scientists have explained my thesis work in their textbooks.

There was more to Caltech than science and engineering. It was the honor system. That meant we had to be honest. No one stole anything at Caltech. No one cheated on exams. All without policing. I bring that system to you. I will tell you the truth about climate science.

Climate science today

Until about the 1980’s, climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science.

Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.

The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.

I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.

If you don’t want that to happen, then you must help bring climate truth to your country.

Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America. We need to get major media attention. We need to bring our message to President Trump and the Republican Party because they are the only people who will support climate truth.

I will tell you more about this in my next letter.

A simple way to know the climate alarmists are lying.

I know, their lips are moving. But here is something much more specific. Here is the UN IPCC Figure 6.1 that claims to represent the carbon cycle.

image
UN IPCC Figure 6.1. Natural and human carbon cycles data. This figure proves all climate alarmist claims are invalid.Enlarged

This figure extracts the IPCC data for the human carbon cycle from Figure 6.1.

image
Enlarged

This figure shows the IPCC human carbon cycle is fake science. Because it is fake, all IPCC’s claims that human carbon emissions cause climate change are invalid.

Let’s see if I can explain this to you.

This figure represents the four carbon reservoirs: Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean.

All human carbon begins in the atmosphere. Then human carbon flows to the other reservoirs. You can think of these four reservoirs as water buckets of different sizes with tubes connecting them. You fill only the atmosphere bucket and let the water flow to the other buckets.

Here are 3 blatant scientific errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:

Problem 1: The Surface Ocean level is zero, but the Deep Ocean level is 155. Carbon can’t get to the Deep Ocean without first adding carbon to the Surface Ocean, and it can’t get there when the flow is zero.

Problem 2: The land level is negative at -30. That is impossible. That is like having a glass filled with negative water.

Problem 3: IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (shown only in IPCC Fig. 6.1) has the atmosphere level at 1.5%. But IPCC’s human carbon (shown here) has the atmosphere level at 65.7%.

This difference proves IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. This violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.

IPCC has stacked the deck in its invalid attempt to prove human carbon emissions cause climate change. But we have now caught them with their diapers down.

In summary, these 3 errors alone bring down the whole IPCC argument that human carbon emissions cause climate change.

The 11,000 so-called “scientists” and all climate alarmists - who claim we have a “climate emergency” - promote junk science.

Nov 02, 2019
Atlantic Hurricane Season

Though it is still possible one or more other systems develop, let’s look at the season with an historical perspective.

The landfall data is the most reliable data set - before the satellite era, storms may have been missed as illustrated for the top two ACE years 1933 and 2005.

image

As for intensity, we have seen evidence new technologies may not sync with old w/r to intensity of storms at sea. Still this decade is the second quietest behind the 1860s for major landfalling storms and second quietest for landfalling hurricanes (behind only 1970s).

image
Enlarged

The ACE as of last report was above average due to Dorian and Humberto in the Atlantic, though behind normal in the Pacific and for the Northern Hemisphere.

image
Enlarged

Total Storms 10-15 (through October 20 we had 14)
Hurricanes: 4-7 (through October 20, we had 5)
Major Hurricanes: 1-3 (through October 20, we had 3)
ACE: 60-110 (through October 20, we had 119.8)

The areas to watch also was mostly on target

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Joe Bastardi noted in April: “On the high end, if the El Nino isn’t impressive we could see activity in line with last year, hence the relatively broad range.”

See the ACE in the Atlantic, very close to last year

image
Enlarged

Dorian was the big news item. ranking 13th for lowest central pressure.

image
Enlarged

Since the 1970s, you can see the spike after the Atlantic AMO flipped to warm in 1995 as Bill Gray warned.

image
Enlarged

Though it is still possible one or more other systems develop, let’s look at the season with an historical perspective.

The landfall data is the most reliable data set - before the satellite era, storms may have been missed as illustrated for the top two ACE years 1933 and 2005.

image
Enlarged

Nov 01, 2019
“Electrify Everything” Policies Would Eliminate Gas Heating and Cooking

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in TheInvadingSea.

image

Natural gas and propane serve as excellent low-cost fuels for heating and cooking. Last year, natural gas usage grew faster than renewables in the United States. But advocates of green energy policies would eliminate gas for heating and cooking.

According to the US Department of Energy, since 2007, US consumption of natural gas increased by 31 percent, rising from 23 to 30 percent of US primary energy consumption. Gas displaced coal as the preferred fuel for electrical power plants. This is the primary reason why US carbon dioxide emissions fell 13 percent, the most of any major nation. Environmental groups call for society to “electrify everything.” Their plan would eliminate all forms of hydrocarbon combustion, such as gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, and natural gas and propane used for heating and cooking. These would be replaced by plug-in electric vehicles, heat pumps, and electric stoves, grills, and water heaters. Green energy advocates want us to use electric appliances that run off the grid, increasingly powered by wind and solar energy, rather than natural gas and coal.

But the trends appear to be going the other way. Last year, from 2017 to 2018, renewable energy sources only increased from 8.6 to 8.7 percent of US energy consumption. Between those two years, natural gas consumption rose from 28.7 to 30.6 percent of US energy needs.

image
Enlarged

US residents like their gas appliances. Natural gas furnaces tend to be lower cost than heat pumps for homes in northern states. Burners on gas stoves boil water faster than stoves that use electric coils. Propane provides excellent low-cost energy for rural locations not connected to the gas line network. And we all like our propane barbeque grills.

Since people prefer gas appliances, the green movement must resort to bans to force people to eliminate hydrocarbons. In July, Berkeley, California became the first US city to ban natural
gas appliances in new single- and multi-family homes. Since then, the California cities of Menlo Park, San Jose, and Santa Monica also enacted bans. Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Seattle, and other cities are considering natural gas bans.

Nations and cities in Europe plan to ban cars using internal combustion engines and diesel fueled-vehicles. Green energy policies require coercion. This electrification trend is demanded in the name of fears about human-caused global warming. But there isn’t the slightest evidence that bans on hydrocarbon fuels and vehicles, if enacted, will have a measureable effect on global temperatures.
Consumers, maybe it’s time to push back against foolish environmental policies before you lose your gas appliances.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.

----------------

Modern transportation—a miracle under attack

Exclusive: Steve Goreham stresses impact of attempt to ban petroleum-fueled vehicles

By Steve Goreham

Modern transportation is amazing. Each day, millions of people fly, drive or are transported across our world for business, pleasure or to see distant family members. These trips, which are powered by petroleum-based fuels, were all but impossible a century ago. But today, many of our leaders call for elimination of hydrocarbon-fueled transportation.

Between 1840 and 1860, more than 250,000 people traveled by wagon train from Independence, Missouri, to the West Coast on the Oregon Trail. Horses and oxen carried the settlers on this 2,000-mile, six-month journey. Disease, attacks by Native Americans and run-overs by wagons claimed the lives of more than 15,000 travelers. Today, a family can make this same journey in a few days in the safety of their air-conditioned van.

Throughout most of history, traded goods were carried by camel, wagon and sailboat. Although world trade increased throughout most of human history, the value of global exports in 1900 was only about $10 billion in today’s dollars.

Since 1900, world merchandise trade skyrocketed to $19.7 trillion per year in 2018, a gain of almost 2,000 times. Each day, trucks, trains, ships and planes transport more than 100 million tons of freight. Petroleum fuel powers more than 90 percent of this cargo.

image
Enlarged

Trains belching smoke typified early hydrocarbon-fueled transportation. But over the last 50 years, humanity has all but eliminated dangerous pollutants from vehicle exhaust. Environmental Protection Agency data show that U.S. vehicles now emit 99 percent less common pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particles) than the vehicles of 1970.

The only remaining emissions from most engines are water vapor and carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, odorless, invisible gas people exhale and plants use in photosynthesis, has been demonized.

Last week, 200 celebrities attended a Google-sponsored climate change conference near Palermo on the island of Sicily in Italy. Movie stars, business executives and royalty traveled by private jet, yacht, helicopter and limousine to this exotic location to discuss how humans are destroying the climate.

Dozens of articles criticized the hypocrisy of the extravagant travel by these elites and the large release of CO2 emissions. But aviation fuel powers 99 percent of commercial air travel and almost all of the other vehicles, leaving no practical alternatives.

Zach Wichter declared that air travel is now “going electric” in a New York Times article last month. But the only example he could cite was a plan for an experimental hybrid aircraft to be deployed in Hawaii that burns aviation fuel as the primary propulsion with batteries as a backup.

Jet fuel has a specific energy of 43 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). The best lithium-ion batteries deliver a specific energy of only about 0.9 MJ/kg. Electric engines are more efficient, but jet fuel engines still have an energy advantage of almost 20 times compared to batteries.

Gasoline and diesel-powered automobiles are a modern miracle taken for granted. The average family of four can travel 400 miles in comfort on a $50 fill up. Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles also hold a 20-times energy density advantage over batteries. This is energy available to power SUVs and small trucks, a growing share of demand in the US, China and much of the world.

Plug-in battery vehicles suffer from the weaknesses of high cost, short driving range, small carrying capacity, a lack of charging stations and expensive battery packs that must be replaced during the vehicle life. And who wants to wait 30 minutes for a recharge, even if one can find a charging station?

Yet governments now plan to force people to buy electric cars and even to ban traditional cars. Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland and several other nations recently announced intentions to ban ICE vehicles during the next two decades. Battery electric vehicle sales are growing, but still captured only about 1.5 percent of world markets in 2018.

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg announced that she will take a sailboat to the next world climate conference in Santiago, Chile, in December 2019. Her decision not to take an aircraft may save CO2 emissions, but will turn a one-day trip into two weeks of travel each direction.

Electric utilities across the world are now required by laws to urge customers not to use electricity, the product they produce. If climate fears continue, look for airlines and cruise ship companies to be required to urge consumers not to use their services as well.

As Cardinal George Pell of Australia remarked, “Sometimes the very learned and clever can be brilliantly foolish, especially when seized by an apparently good cause.”

Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business and public policy and author of the book “Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.”

Page 3 of 288 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »