Rajasthan swelters at 50 degrees Celsius, severe heat wave to continue for next 2-3 days
And people live and work in that environment. It puts the trifling temperatures predicted by the Warmists to shame. Rajasthan is essentially a desert and high daytime temperatures are normal in a desert
The severe heat wave in Rajasthan will continue for the next two to three days, said the India Meteorological Department on Sunday.
According to the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), on Saturday, Jaisalmer recorded 48.0 degrees Celsius, Bikaner 47.2 degrees Celsius, Churu 47.0 degrees Celsius, Jodhpur 46.9 degrees Celsius, Ganganagar 46.5 degrees Celsius, Kota 46.3 degrees Celsius, and Jaipur 43.8 degrees Celsius.
The rising temperatures have significantly impacted the normal life of people, especially those exposed to the sun for extended periods. In an attempt to protect themselves from the effects of the intense heat, people are taking several precautions including staying hydrated, avoiding direct sunlight during peak hours and covering their faces with cloth.
A resident of Jaipur, Hoshiyar Singh, while speaking with ANI said, "The mercury rose here in last few days. To protect ourselves from heat, we are taking necessary precautions like staying hydrated, and covering our body with cloth while going out from home. We are keeping ourselves hydrated by consuming coconut water and lemonade."
Another resident Rai Singh said, "I am a delivery boy and I have to do my work even in this hot weather. And since my job involves travelling outside only, I try to protect myself by drinking lots of water."
"To protect oneself from heat, I would advise people to not venture out of their homes in the afternoon. Even if they have to, they should step outside their home by drinking lots of water and covering their head and body with cloth, Shyamlal Choudhary, another resident said.
Meanwhile, Radhey Shyam Sharma, Director, Meteorological Center, Jaipur, said a maximum temperature of 50 degrees Celsius has reached for the first time in this summer season in Rajasthan. The 50 degrees Celsius was recorded in Phalodi in the last 24 hours.
Speaking with ANI, Radhey Shyam Sharma said, "Heatwave and severe heatwave will continue for the next two to three days. From May 28 and 29, there can be a decrease of 2-3 degrees in maximum temperature... From May 29 and 30, there can be a slight relief from severe heatwave."
In a post on X, IMD said, "Heatwave is very likely over parts of West Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana-Chandigarh-Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, East Rajasthan and isolated places over Vidarbha on May 30, 2024."
In another post, IMD said, "Heatwave to a severe heat wave is very likely over many parts of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana-Chandigarh-Delhi, West Uttar Pradesh on May 27, 2024." (ANI)
********************************************
Dutch Farmers Force Heat Pumps About-Turn
The Netherlands will tear up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps as part of a war on net zero by Geert Wilders and the Dutch farmers’ party.
Six months after his shock election victory, Mr Wilders this week struck an agreement to usher in a Right-wing coalition government of four parties. “We are writing history,” he said as he announced the programme for the new government.
The new coalition marks the first time that a party focused on the interests of the agricultural sector has got into power in the Netherlands. Earlier this year, mass farmers’ protests swept Europe.
The coalition pact includes pledges to reverse green policies introduced under the previous government to hit EU climate targets, including compulsory buyouts of polluting farms. It also plans to end subsidies for electric cars in 2025 and rejects an EU demand that the Dutch reduce livestock numbers to cut pollution.
But now, even Western countries are starting to turn against the worst excesses of the green movement. The new Dutch coalition has released its programme for government, and at the heart of it are a swathe of pro-consumer, pro-energy security policies, reversing some of the bizarre environmental schemes introduced by its predecessors.
Among them was a programme to compulsorily purchase farms to meet EU climate targets. The result was a farmers’ revolt and a new insurgent political party. The coalition agreement tears up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps and scraps an obligation that the Netherlands should pursue a “more ambitious environment policy” than the rest of Europe.
Young Voters Are Shifting Right And Breaking “Taboos.”
Geert Wilders’ party did better among 18 – 35-year-olds than among some older groups. If all ages matched the younger vote, his party would have won four more seats.
At Politico, writers are worried that trends like this, which are also seen in Portugal and France, mean the “taboos against voting for populist anti-immigration parties are fading.” This begs the question of who decided that was taboo in the first place.
Their biggest fear is that even young voters are breaking out of their educational pens. They paint this as a devious “far right” opportunity instead of what it really is: the young rebelling against a lifetime of propaganda. The old jargon and name-calling formula to bully the workers into submission isn’t working anymore.
********************************************
Houston Storm Reveals Downside of Forced Electrification
We live in a world with more and more devices that require charging. Nothing shows the downside of that better than the recent storm that hit Houston, where thousands of residents still lack power.
Houstonians with electric stoves can’t cook, those with electric water heaters lack hot water—and those with electric cars can’t charge them.
The range of an electric vehicle without electricity is zero.
But President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation are requiring that, by 2032, 70% of new cars and 25% of new trucks sold will be electric.
Imagine the state that Houston would be in if the number of EVs on the road today met those standards.
Biden’s Energy Department has issued final regulations that most stoves sold must be electric by 2028, and most water heaters must be electric by 2029.
If these rules were fully phased in, Houstonians would be worse off today. These appliances not only are more expensive, they don’t work without electricity—unlike natural gas stoves and water heaters.
The latest report from the Institute of Energy Research, released earlier this month, shows that the United States has 4 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough for 130 years; 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, more than five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, enough for 227 years; and 470 billion short tons of coal, enough for 485 years, and 50% more than Russia.
These are all recoverable with current technology. And as technology advances, America’s resources will expand.
Although America has centuries of reserves, the Biden administration wants to use wind turbines and solar panels to power electricity. Electricity made from wind and solar power is intermittent and less resilient and reliable than continuous energy from nuclear power, coal, and natural gas.
Wind farms require backup natural gas power plants to start up when the wind stops blowing. And solar arrays require battery storage for when the sun doesn’t shine.
The Houston crisis dramatically illustrates that not only will forced electrification lead to higher energy prices, but it will reduce economic resilience. Natural gas pipelines are buried underground, but electric transmission cables and towers are out in the open. That is why major storms lead to electricity blackouts but not natural gas blackouts.
The Biden administration’s goal is for forced electrification through wind and solar to reduce global temperatures. But even if America used no fossil fuels at all, starting now, this would make a difference of only 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to government models.
Costs of integrating renewables into America’s electricity grid underestimate the resilience needed for renewable infrastructure against storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes. The resiliency analysis does not fully address the considerable costs of reinforcing and repairing vulnerable wind turbines and solar panels.
Houston’s crisis is further proof that a sensible energy policy would overhaul America’s transmission and distribution systems, including burying power lines. Renewables strain the existing transmission system, leading to blackouts, as is becoming increasingly common in California. Environmental siting regulation limits the construction of new transmission lines.
Biden’s transition to renewable energy would require a fundamental reengineering of America’s power grid. High levels of distributed solar energy would require replacing existing transmission and distribution equipment with expensive grid-forming inverters and controllable capacitors. The massive rollout’s costs are not fully accounted for.
Low-income households are disproportionately vulnerable to blackouts. Their electricity takes longer to restore and they can’t purchase standalone generators that enabled some Houstonians to keep power during the disruption.
Through multiple regulations, the Biden administration is attempting impose electrification on Americans and end the use of fossil fuels. But EVs, electric water heaters, and electric stoves don’t operate during blackouts.
Houston residents today, together with all Americans, need a resilient power grid that will continue to provide electricity during storms.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/25/houston-storm-shows-downside-of-forced-electrification/
********************************************“All of the Above” — a VERY Bad Idea
The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. (A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.)
Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.
Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. See this interesting new book about lobbyists.
The obvious question is: “Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)? The unfortunate answer is almost no one.
The result of this striking imbalance is that most energy policies are essentially written by lobbyists — which means they are permeated with benefits for their clients, and then conveyed with carefully orchestrated marketing propaganda.
To keep their control, lobbyists full well know that they must maintain the impression that their self-serving policies are actually in the public interest — so they leave no stone unturned to creatively maintain that illusion.
Despite lobbyists’ carefully massaged messages, it is totally accidental if any parts of their policies actually happen to be advantageous to the public.
A classic example of this is the well-known “All of the Above” energy mantra.
This is saying that ALL energy sources should not only be allowed on the Grid but should also be supported. On the surface (especially to non-technical parties) it sounds reasonable, as who wouldn’t be in favor of investigating alternative energy options?
However, allowing an energy source on the Grid is a privilege, not an entitlement! Sound energy policies (i.e., those that would actually benefit the public) would ensure that the only energy alternatives that are permitted on the Grid would be those that have scientific proof that they are a net societal benefit.
Phrased another way, that would mean the only alternative energy sources that should be approved and supported are those that are: a) reliable, b) low cost, and c) environmentally friendly. [Note: Wind and solar are none of these!]
How do we do that? Well, it’s certainly not by taking a salesperson’s (lobbyist’s) word about their product! We assess the real qualifications of proposed alternative energy sources by conducting a scientific assessment.
A key problem with the “All of the Above” policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part… Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.
To avoid that exposé, they devised a clever end-run around the facts: no scientific assessment is needed if all options are pre-approved as acceptable!
If we buy the lobbyists’ energy mantra, we accept everything. These marketers have cleverly switched the focus from the actual merits of alternative energy sources, to such subjective intangibles as energy “diversity” and “security”…
On the surface, the “All of the Above” slogan sounds innocent enough and even has a ring of reasonableness to it. But, of course, that is the lobbyists’ raison d’etre: to subtly get preferential treatment for third-rate energy sources that otherwise would fall by the wayside.
We need to do some critical thinking about lobbyists’ sales pitches. In this example: does an “All of the Above” policy really make sense?
#1 – When we include ALL options, that would mean that unreliable alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#2 – When we include ALL options, that would mean very expensive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#3 – When we include ALL options, that would mean environmentally destructive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
Do ANY of those make sense? How do we advance our economy and our society, by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous alternative power sources on the Grid?
This is a 100% predictable result when political science replaces real Science.
Who benefits from an “All of the Above” energy policy? It certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, most businesses, the military, or the environment. Major beneficiaries would be foreign conglomerates who supply us with inferior energy sources, our enemies who are anxious to see our Grid and economy crippled, plus China to whom we will owe an even larger debt.
There is a BETTER path, and one that is in the public’s best interest…
An “All of the Sensible” energy slogan would go a LONG way towards putting some balance in the energy policy fight, plus it would send the message that citizens, businesses, and the environment are a top priority for legislators.
What are our “sensible” energy choices? Well, that is exactly the conversation we should be having — but are not.
I would posit that “sensible” alternative electrical energy sources are those that are proven to have a net societal benefit — so let the discussion begin!
https://co2coalition.org/2024/05/14/all-of-the-above-a-very-bad-idea/
***************************************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)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment