A Test for You
There were two extended periods of warming in the 20th century: 1910-45 and then 1976-98. Bear in mind that the earlier warming was necessarily 100% natural while the latter is alleged to have been caused primarily by our sins of emission.
Which is which? (same scale)
The one on the Left one was the most recent
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Carbon-Taxes-and-a-Test.html?soid=1101509381788&aid=1qEfqSjIPYw
***************************************************Will nuclear fusion power save us?
“Nuclear fusion breakthrough,” are the world’s headlines today. Eventually we will have free, pollution-free energy. No CO2 emissions, we will be saved. I have lived with the promise of nuclear fusion all my life and it has always been decades away. It’s become something of a bad joke amongst the science community that fusion is always decades away.
Nuclear fusion liberates energy by combining light atoms – isotopes of hydrogen – rather than by using the radioactive decay of large atoms such as uranium and plutonium – nuclear fission. It could have many advantages; the reaction can be switched off (not possible with fission), it uses water as a fuel and produces very little waste. The question is how do you fuse atoms?
Obviously it isn’t easy. Every star in the Universe generates its energy this way but stars are big and places of great pressure and temperature, unlike the Earth. One way is to generate a hot gas of hydrogen isotopes – 100 million degrees or so – and confine it so that the hydrogen nuclei (for it will be ionised) fuse. The heating is done by microwaves and the confinement by a magnetic field, for anything physical would melt. The problem is that the plasma is unstable and so far the reactions are fleeting.
This is the basis of the major multi-national project to develop fusion, the $22 billion International Thermal Experimental Reactor (ITER)project (China, India, Japan, Korea, Europe, US) which is under construction in France and hopes to start tests in 2035 as part of developing the expertise to build a commercial fusion reactor presumably in the unspecified following decades.
Flash and Burn
Yesterday’s announcement involves a different technique. The US National Ignition Facilityfocuses a burst from a multitude of high-powered lasers on a grain-sized target that compresses to initiate fusion. The announcement by US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was hailed by the world’s media as a great breakthrough in the developing technique of fusing atoms together, limitless, cheap, green were the adjectives used.
The announcement itself is a puzzle and had the feeling of being some much needed good news to announce. In reality although the experiments referred to took place a few months ago the “breakthrough” results were reported a year ago with the major advance being published in the Journal Nature in 2014. By one analysis 2.05 MJ of energy pumped into the pellet produced 3.15 MJ of energy. This does not include the 322 MJ needed to run the 192 lasers. So the story wasn’t a real breakthrough, just an advance. In any commercial development of this laser technique millions of fuel pellets would be needed for each reactor a year. At present they are tailor-made and cost almost $1 million each.
So why did the story lead some news bulletins? Given the announcement by Granholm it was clearly a story and in the main its coverage was good though some specialist correspondents clearly didn’t know the background and one science editors analysis of the event was puerile. I’ll leave it for an exercise for the reader to decide who I refer to.
Green Energy
But should nuclear fusion be part of the green energy debate? It is certainly not going to rescue us anytime soon. But I suppose linking fusion to green energy and the climate debate will help funds flowing.
Some would disagree with me and point to the many small, private companies that want to develop smaller-scale fusion reactors much sooner. They have acquired significant investment, some 30 firms have raised a total of $2.4 billion and General Fusion of Canada says it hopes for a viable reactor in the 2030s. CEOs of such companies see a payoff within a decade but to me it sounds like a sales pitch to attract further investment. Experts will privately say this is very wishful thinking.
In the mid-1990s I gave an after-dinner speech to a society of nuclear fusion scientists. I wondered out loud if the arrival of the first commercial fusion power would be as far in the future as the first hits of the Beatles were in the past. It took 50 years from the steam engine to trains and the same time between the internal combustion engine and cars. Nuclear fusion is a lot more difficult that such simple thermodynamic engines. Perhaps the desire for this energy coupled with advances in artificial intelligence analysis and control systems will speed up its development and the equations of history will be superseded.
A modern society needs high energy density power production systems. Without energy storage renewables are limited. We need fusion energy which has been promised for so long but I think humans will have walked on Mars long before we get commercial fusion power.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/will-nuclear-fusion-power-save-us/
************************************************All Biden’s Green Job Losers
President Biden sold the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as a giant climate jobs program, but then how does he explain what happened Friday at the Stellantis Jeep Cherokee plant in Belvidere, Illinois? Some 1,350 workers are losing their jobs so the auto maker can finance its government-mandated and subsidized electric-vehicle expansion.
Stellantis broke the news to workers on Friday that it will idle the Cherokee plant in February, citing “the increasing cost related to the electrification of the automotive market.” Merry Christmas! The Jeep Cherokee has been a popular model, though the plant has cut shifts since 2019.
But Stellantis, which formed through the merger of France’s PSA Group and Italian-American Fiat Chrysler, needs to come up with money to finance the more than $35 billion that it plans to invest in EVs over the next few years. Government industrial policy doesn’t give the company much of a choice.
Europe and several U.S. states have announced plans to ban the sale of new internal-combustion engine vehicles by 2035. Stellantis spent $2.4 billion to buy regulatory credits from Tesla between 2019 and 2021 to comply with green mandates. The Biden fuel economy mandates could force it to spend more unless it ramps up EV production.
The Inflation Reduction Act’s generous credits for battery production and EV buyers are modestly easing the costs of this government-forced transition. Many auto makers currently use profits from gas-powered SUVs and trucks to subsidize EVs that are losing money. They hope that sweetened government subsidies will eventually make EVs profitable, but in the meantime companies need to choose where to make investments and where to cut back.
Liberals pretend that the transition to EVs won’t come at a cost to workers or businesses. But taxpayers won’t foot the entire bill, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars industrywide. Workers at Stellantis’s Cherokee plant are the collateral damage of this government-forced reallocation of capital. We’re waiting for Sens. Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders to plead for the workers here.
The United Auto Workers is denouncing Stellantis for laying off workers. “Not allocating new product to plants like Belvidere is unacceptable,” UAW President Ray Curry said. What did he expect? The union backed stricter fuel economy mandates and the IRA subsidies, even though its own studies showed the shift to EVs could cost 35,000 jobs.
Technological change disrupts markets and leads to some job gains and losses. But the problem here is that government is overriding market forces and picking the winners and losers. Auto makers’ enormous investments in EVs are largely being driven by political choices, not consumer choice. Politicians in Washington and state capitals, not business owners or executives, are calling the shots.
Labor dislocations caused by government climate subsidies and mandates will play out across the economy in the coming years. At least in the current tight labor market, most workers who lose their jobs can probably find new ones, though they may be lower-paying or require moving. But when government picks winners and losers, there are almost always more of the latter. The politicians don’t tell you about those.
*******************************************
Beware ESG ‘Wacktavism’ as Investment Funds Push Leftist Goals
State officials are pulling billions of dollars out of Wall Street asset managers like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, citing ESG’s lousy returns and strong-arming of corporations that don’t bow to the left-wing agenda.
There’s no such thing as blue money or red money. Only the green stuff will pay bills.
Friday, North Carolina’s state treasurer, Dale Folwell, became the latest of many officials from nearly half the states across America — including Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona and West Virginia — to protest Wall Street’s blue investment strategy, also called ESG.
What is ESG? “E” stands for environment, “S” for social justice and “G” for corporate governance. ESG funds invest in companies that oppose fossil fuels, push for unionization and stress racial and gender equity over merit in hiring and board selection.
That’s a partial definition because at least a dozen rating firms tag companies with an ESG score, often based on subjective and somewhat secret criteria, even including a company’s stance on abortion rights.
State officials are pulling billions of dollars out of Wall Street asset managers like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, citing ESG’s lousy returns and strong-arming of corporations that don’t bow to the left-wing agenda.
Pay attention to what these officials are warning because small investors are also getting hurt by ESG. In fact, even if you don’t invest at all but you pay taxes, ESG puts you at risk. You’ll be on the hook when states invested in ESG funds incur losses and have to come to taxpayers for more money. New York City taxpayers beware.
Mr. Folwell calls ESG “wacktavism,” warning that “a focus on ESG is not a focus on returns.”
Here’s proof: Last week, Bloomberg reported that the eight of the 10 largest ESG funds by assets have underperformed the benchmark S&P 500 so far in 2022. Ouch! The cost of being woke.
It shouldn't be a surprise. In August, a Harvard Law School symposium on ESG fund performance found no support for hyperbolic claims that investing in “social good” benefits the bottom line.
Overall, the relationship between ESG and financial performance is “uncertain.” Several studies found ESG funds “underperform,” especially in market downturns — like now.
New York City has incurred sizable losses. Taxpayers will have to cough up billions to replenish the city’s Retirement Systems, according to the city’s comptroller, Brad Lander.
Instead of being remorseful, Mr. Lander is pressing Vanguard and BlackRock — the two biggest asset managers of city retirement funds — to double down on their climate commitments. Meanwhile, taxpayers can pound salt.
It’s hard not to apply the word “scam” to aggressive ESG marketing, especially to millennials. Asset managers charge a whopping 40 percent more to manage money in these funds than non-ESG funds. For what? That’s the question the Securities and Exchange Commission is asking.
“In response to investor demand, advisers like Goldman Sachs Asset Management are increasingly branding and marketing their funds and strategies as ‘ESG,’” said the SEC Enforcement Division’s Sanjay Wadhwa. On November 22, the SEC slapped Goldman Sachs with a $4 million penalty.
Making ESG claims without backup is so common now, it has a name: “greenwashing.”
Chief executive Stefan Hoopes of Deutsche Bank AG’s investment unit, which is also under SEC investigation, says it’s time to dial back the “exuberant marketing.”
Amen. But there’s a bigger danger: financial strong-arming. Wall Street asset managers are putting capital in companies with woke policies and choking off capital from companies that don’t bow to their ESG agenda.
Sounds like the Chinese Communist Party, not America. In the United States, access to bank loans and investment capital shouldn’t hinge on your political views.
The chief executive of BlackRock, Larry Fink, denies that ESG is political, but key staff managing his ESG operations previously worked in the Obama administration and donate to Senators Warren and Sanders.
On December 1, Governor DeSantis yanked $2 billion of state money from BlackRock. Florida’s chief financial officer, Jimmy Patronis, said, ‘If Larry, or his friends on Wall Street, want to change the world — run for office. Start a non-profit. Donate to the causes you care about.”
He added: “Using our cash, however, to fund BlackRock’s social-engineering project isn’t something Florida ever signed up for.”
ESG is thuggery, using financial clout to accomplish what Americans would never approve at the ballot box. The danger isn’t just to your wallet. It’s to our nation.
https://www.nysun.com/article/beware-esg-wacktavism-as-investment-funds-push-leftist-goals
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment