Cutting Through the Climate Fog
Of course, hot days in July and August are nothing new. Those of a certain age might recall growing up without air conditioning. True, our fond memories aren’t always accurate (we also remember walking miles to school, uphill both ways), yet somehow we lived through it and we loved summer anyway.
But today it seems that everything is controversial, and weather is no exception. And for context, I must also point out that the summer of 2023 is shaping up to be exceptionally hot, breaking records in many places. It is one more reminder (as if we needed reminding) that steadily warmer summers are a manifestation of climate change, a very real and serious matter.
We might be inclined to take that serious matter more seriously if media coverage were more balanced. Several off-balance examples caught my attention in the past couple of weeks:
A sub-headline on a Washington Post news article noting that this summer’s extreme heat has environmental policymakers very worried.
Political commentary to the effect that despite the record-shattering heat, Republicans still do not believe that climate change is real.
Widely covered pronouncement from the scientific community that three days last week (Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday) were the earth’s hottest days in 120,000 years. (Yes, 120,000 years!)
My immediate thoughts about worried policymakers: Mother Nature couldn’t care less about them or their policies. There is an enormous chasm between climate change policy (ours or the world’s) and the weather that shows up on our doorsteps — and in some cases, they’re not connected at all.
Despite the trillions of dollars spent or pledged to battle climate change, we’ve not even nudged the needle. That should be no surprise to anyone. Those massively complex computer analyses that have convinced us that man-caused emissions of greenhouse gases pose an existential threat to the planet also tell us that our very ambitious (and thus far unachievable) emission-reduction targets will produce, at best, a barely detectible decrease in global warming.
One example: Our government-mandated transition of the entire automobile industry and supporting infrastructure to electric vehicles may in fact lead to sweeping changes in Americans’ car choices, driving habits, and personal finances, but it’s unlikely to produce even slight changes in the occurrence of forest fires, the intensity and frequency of hurricanes, or summer temperatures anywhere. Our own analyses tell us so.
Regarding belief in climate change, just about everyone with a pulse (GOP included) acknowledges its reality. What some of us deny — with very good reason — is the efficacy of the climate change agenda advocated by the Left. It’s unaffordable, drives cost of electricity up and availability down, and achieves little or nothing in return.
And the recent scientific assertion that this summer’s high temperatures were the highest in 120,000 years is, in my view, an embarrassing — and very telling — indicator of the mind-numbing hubris of those upon whom we rely for guidance in environmental matters.
The point here is not to throw cold water on the climatological studies conducted by scientists around the world. Theirs is a necessary and challenging endeavor. But it’s hard to buy into precise assertions about daily temperatures more than a thousand centuries ago when produced by the same analytical methods that consistently fail to predict what will happen next year. Worse, my own skepticism hit the flashing red light zone when one of the leading proponents of the recent analysis asserted, “We know exactly what the problem is, we know exactly how to fix it, and we have all the solutions we need.”
No. Wrong on all counts. That kind of unwarranted confidence in computer analyses can get us in big trouble.
Here’s what we do know. We know that over its lifetime, our planet has gone through both extreme cooling and extreme warming cycles, at times becoming barely habitable; we know that man-made emissions, and particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, since the Industrial Revolution (only two centuries ago) has contributed to global warming; and we know as well that factors unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions, such as changes to earth’s orbit around the sun, have also caused global warming.
We know that there are now nearly eight billion inhabitants on this planet (that’s about 100,000 for each human who lived on the planet 120,000 years ago) consuming food, sharing our natural resources, and relying on electrical and other energy sources. We know that we must wean ourselves from reliance on fossil fuels — but at the same time we must find the energy and resources needed to support all eight billion people.
And we know that our long-term survival will hinge on our ingenuity, resilience, and capacity to adapt to whatever curveballs Mother Nature throws at us.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/99184-cutting-through-the-climate-fog-2023-07-27
************************************************Batteries
Depending on your outlook, the Net Zero movement could result in anything from the seven horses of the apocalypse riding across the sky to the delivery of some sort of Nirvana for humankind.
No matter what your view, some facts are clear and undisputed.
Fact one. It is going to cost a fortune and you will be paying the bill. Fact two. If investments in intermittent wind and solar didn’t provide significant returns, no one would invest in them. Fact three. Intermittent and unreliable generators will always deliver intermittent and unreliable electricity.
Which brings me to batteries…
The media seems to love the concept of batteries, storage of intermittent wind and solar-generated electricity, and a proposed end of coal and gas all hail this part of Nirvana. Unfortunately, pesky facts get in the way.
Batteries are storage devices, not some sort of perpetual motion machine that doesn’t abide by the laws of physics. They must be recharged after use, have fire risks that most people I think are unaware of, and are very, very expensive.
Storage first. In very simple terms a 2.4-kilowatt-hour battery could run your fast-boil kettle for an hour, or potentially your clothes dryer and your fast-boil kettle at the same time for 30 minutes. Assuming it was fully charged and could run until it’s completely exhausted. You see where this is going. If tomorrow it rains or isn’t windy, the likelihood of your battery system recharging fully while your intermittent generators hopefully provide electricity to your household is low. Imagine living in the north where the monsoon can set in for weeks.
Batteries, especially lithium-based batteries burn hot. Really hot. In fact they are so hot that emergency services around the country have special procedures regarding how to deal with them and they are worried. In an interview with the ABC in February this year, Electrochemistry Professor Paul Christensen, from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom said:
‘Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big, big fan of lithium-ion batteries. But I believe they’ve penetrated far faster at all levels of our society than our understanding of the risks.
‘What people had reported as being smoke was actually vapour cloud vented by the lithium-ion batteries, which is explosive as well as toxic. If that vapour cloud ignites immediately you get long, rocket-like flames, 1,000 degrees centigrade.’
You don’t have to look far to see emergency services and first responders have concerns and they are growing. Fire and Rescue New South Wales give this advice on its website for electric vehicles:
Keep clear of the vehicle and warn passers-by to keep at a safe distance (at least 30 metres), even if there is no visible smoke, vapours, or flames.
An electric vehicle that has been involved in a collision, a fire, or has been submerged, must be treated with caution as the high voltage battery pack may be compromised. Damaged EV batteries may ignite hours, days, or even weeks after the initial incident.
For household batteries Renew Magazine in March 2020 provided the following advice on home battery installation:
Batteries aren’t allowed in habitable rooms (bathrooms, laundries, pantries, hallways are not habitable rooms), in ceiling spaces or wall cavities, under stairways or access walkways, in an evacuation route or escape route, near combustible materials. Clear space must extend at least 600 mm to either side and 900 mm above the battery. Most likely the installer will add a thick cement sheet unless the wall is already made of cement sheet, brick or concrete. A battery in a garage may need a bollard to protect it from cars.
If its chemistry is lithium or it’s a powerful battery that can create a dangerous arc (arc flash) in the event of a short circuit.
If batteries at home and electric vehicles are your thing, if you can afford them, and if they suit your lifestyle, knock yourself out. But please make informed decisions. In my view it is only a matter of time before more onerous standards are put in place, especially to deal with fire risk. It is only a matter of time before enormous upgrades will be needed in the electricity network to deal with increased demand. It is only a matter of time before disposal becomes regulated and charges are put to the consumer. AEMO estimated that increased demand at peak times could be as much as 60 per cent to deal with electric vehicles alone. It is only a matter of time before there are more fires and injuries associated with this developing technology. While the electric Nirvana supporters continue to howl at the Net Zero moon, there are those out there who think physics, engineering, risk analysis, and minimising environmental impact are just as important.
And whether it is wind turbines, solar panels, lithium batteries, or electric vehicles they all have a design life and must be disposed of at end of life. What on earth do you do with it all?
Wind turbine blades are expected to create approximately 43 million tonnes of waste by 2050 around the world. Just the blades alone. Without counting the millions of solar panels and tens of thousands, growing into millions of batteries.
I’m often asked about the half-life of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors that are producing baseload electricity around the world. In America, generally using older nuclear technology, their nuclear fleet provides electricity to 70 million people a year. And produce enough waste to fill half an Olympic-sized swimming pool per year. Whatever the half-life of that waste is I can guarantee you it is less than the half-life of heavy metals, carbon fibre, lithium, and everything else that goes into what are incorrectly called renewable generators. Because the waste products from intermittent wind and solar last forever.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/batteries/ ?
*********************************************************
Supreme Court Issues Order Allowing Work to Resume on West Virginia Gas Pipe
The U.S. Supreme Court on July 27 allowed Equitrans Midstream Corp. to resume the building of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, granting what some described as a win for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) by lifting a lower-court order that blocked work on the project.
In a brief order (pdf), the high court suggested that it would possibly consider lawsuits issued by environmental groups. “Although the Court does not reach applicant’s suggestion that it treat the application as a petition for a writ of mandamus at this time, that determination is without prejudice to further consideration in light of subsequent developments,” it said.
“The application to vacate stays presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted,” the Supreme Court added. It didn’t provide any explanation of its decision.
The decision went against the Wilderness Society and other environmental groups that sought an injunction to halt construction. Those groups argued in court that the Mountain Valley Pipeline construction would negatively affect endangered species and said that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management violated environmental statutes by approving its construction.
Lawyers cited an 1871 Supreme Court ruling that found that Congress can’t prescribe the rule of decision in a particular case, as that would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the separate powers of the judiciary and would allow Congress “to pick winners and losers,” to quote the groups, in litigation before the federal courts.
Lawyers for the pipeline company said they needed quick Supreme Court action to keep plans on track to finish building the 300-mile pipeline and put it into service by the winter, when the need for natural gas for heating grows. Mountain Valley Pipeline said the work is largely complete, except for a 3-mile section that cuts through the Jefferson National Forest.
The $6.6 billion project is designed to meet growing energy demands in the South and Mid-Atlantic by transporting gas from the Marcellus and Utica fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
The project has been delayed by a litany of court challenges. One challenge against the pipeline was upheld by the 4th Circuit of Appeals, which has often tossed out the pipeline’s permits over environmental concerns. The Supreme Court on July 27 ruled on two disputes, one brought by the Wilderness Society and one brought by 10 environmental groups.
Those groups wanted a review from the 4th Appeals Court of authorizations that were handed down earlier this year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service that allowed the pipeline segments in the Jefferson National Forest.
Officials Respond
It also comes as Mr. Manchin and several other lawmakers added items into the debt ceiling bill passed last month that sought to allow the pipeline to continue.
“The Supreme Court has spoken and this decision to let construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline move forward again is the correct one,” the West Virginia senator, who is up for reelection in 2024, said in a statement. “I am relieved that the highest court in the land has upheld the law Congress passed and the President signed.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, similarly praised the decision by saying that he is “pleased the Supreme Court recognized the importance of this project not only for West Virginia, but for the nation.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-lets-work-resume-on-manchin-backed-gas-pipe-5427310 ?
***************************************
Who Wears the Cost of Taking Down Wind Turbines Once They Expire?
Well in Australia, it could be the landholder or farmer.
Andrew Dyer, the country’s energy infrastructure commissioner says he has seen several “questionable agreements” between renewable companies and landholders that could leave the latter saddled with millions of dollars in decommissioning bills.
“Under the law, it will default to the landlord,” Mr. Dyer told a Senate Estimates hearing on May 23. “It’s up to the landlord to make sure that they have … a really good contract in place and you get the appropriate bond set-ups to cover the costs.
“It costs more money to pull a turbine down than it does to put it up, and that probably makes sense when you think about it. The costs of pulling down a turbine may exceed the revenue you get for 25 years. That’s not a good outcome.
“In the case of a turbine in Queensland where the bed plate cracked and you couldn’t go near the turbine because it could fall on your head, that cost millions of dollars to take down with robots and explosives. You could be stuck with some big bills.”
How Hard is it to Remove a Wind Turbine?
The average wind turbine has a lifespan of 25 years before it must be decommissioned and taken apart.
Yet the process of deconstructing and disposing of wind turbines is no simple feat.
“They have an in-ground lump of concrete that can be as much as 800 tons [to support a 200-metre high turbine] and could be left to the landowner or a farmer … to deconstruct what is effectively a giant Meccano [similar to Lego] set,” said federal Nationals MP Keith Pitt in an interview with The Epoch Times on July 28.
“This [net zero movement] is moving so fast that no one has the necessary regulations in place to protect the owners of the land, and potentially the future costs to the Australian taxpayer,” he added.
Mr. Pitt called for financial security or bonds to be made available, like how mining activity features similar arrangements for land rehabilitation once a project concludes.
“That should absolutely happen for intermittent wind and solar. Solar panels that will cover literally millions of hectares, and wind turbines that will dominate the skyline,” he said.
The energy infrastructure commissioner said some renewable energy providers would try to avoid a bond “because the landholder was ignorant to the risk.”
“We put out an updated guideline [pdf] in January this year to help landholders ask the right questions before they sign a document,” Mr. Dyer said.
“There are some questionable agreements out there that were not balanced, in our view, and so we’ve given the community and the landholders a helping hand.”
Mr. Dyer also suggested making bond provisions part of the licensing that goes into building renewable projects.
The march towards net zero has spurred a swathe of logistic, financial, engineering, and even security challenges.
According to the commissioner’s Energy Charter 2023, farmers have said the building of new infrastructure to support renewable energy could come at the cost of farmland.
“[About] 58 percent of surveyed landholders said that transmission infrastructure will result in a direct loss of farmable land or disruption to their land productivity,” the document states.
“Sixty percent also believe transmission infrastructure will impact their use of machinery or equipment. Some landholders also noted biodiversity impacts, which may diminish the natural features valued by the local community and aesthetics of the area.”
Federal MP Pitt said new transmission lines required easements, which need to be kept clear of regrowth to prevent future interference.
“That land generally can’t be farmed and can’t be utilised,” he said. “And it gets in the way of moving around your own property. Generally, no one wants a 200-metre strip of unusable land through the middle of prime agricultural land that impacts not only their operations but the value of their property.”
********************************************
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