Now, this is a big, complex issue, and a lot to absorb, but the thumbnail is this: Rising nationalism in Europe is driven in part by frustration over rising energy costs (as well as things like unchecked immigration) and those rising energy costs are in large part due to net-zero schemes to appease climate activists. Britain has gone all-in for renewables, but the renewables aren't consistent, and when the wind isn't blowing, the United Kingdom has been relying on the expensive proposition of starting up natural-gas-powered electrical plants - using Norwegian natural gas. Their backup, incidentally, is gas imported from the United States, and President Trump is planning to ramp up production, but he's also likely to meet American consumer and industrial needs over exports. Interestingly, in the article linked above, "The Telegraph," an outlet not terribly friendly to President Trump, has actually given him credit for doing what's right by America first.

A new study says that many large-scale hydropower projects in Europe and the US have been disastrous for the environment.

Dozens of these dams are being removed every year, with many considered dangerous and uneconomic.

But the authors fear that the unsustainable nature of these projects has not been recognised in the developing world.

Thousands of new dams are now being planned for rivers in Africa and Asia.

'They dammed everything' - hydropower gone sour

Are too many hydropower dams being built?

Hydropower is the source of 71% of renewable energy throughout the world and has played a major role in the development of many countries.

But researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.

Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one a week on both sides of the Atlantic.

The problem, say the authors of this new paper, is that governments were blindsided by the prospect of cheap electricity without taking into account the full environmental and social costs of these installations.

More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

Germany is decommissioning its closed nuclear plants, but opportunities for restarting remain. New energy demand and news of Three Mile Island's revival have improved the outlook for closed plants. No significant technical barriers prevent Germany’s nuclear restart, but swift action is needed.

Germany shut down its last nuclear plants on April 15, 2023, and is making significant progress in decommissioning 31 reactors. After years of producing enough electricity for its own needs and exporting the surplus, Germany imported 9 TWh net in 2023 and as of November 25, 2024, increased imports to 25 TWh net. The German economy is expected to shrink by 0.2% in 2024, following a 0.3% decline in 2023. A 2024 survey by Germany’s DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce shows a rising number of businesses are considering reducing production or relocating out of Germany.

A German nuclear restart depends solely on political will. The two most urgent measures include an immediate moratorium on the dismantling of reactors and an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to allow nuclear power plants to be operated again.

Germany once operated one of the world's largest nuclear power fleets and was a leading provider of nuclear technology. However, public opposition halted nuclear expansion by 1990, leading to a phase-out agreement in 2002. Despite a brief runtime extension under Chancellor Merkel in 2009, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted her to make a rapid reversal of her previous policy, with Germany committing to shut down all nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

To replace nuclear power, Germany planned to rely on a mix of coal, wind, solar, and Russian natural gas from pipelines. The country aimed to gradually phase out coal while increasing renewables and using natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, this strategy faced a significant setback when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupting Germany's plans for cheap Russian gas imports. This crisis sparked public debates about extending nuclear plant operations. Nevertheless, Germany's last nuclear reactors ceased electricity production on April 15, 2023.

The shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants has had major impacts. Before the final nuclear closures, Germany had been a net exporter of electricity. Now, Germany is a net importer, relying on its neighbors for power. Imports in 2024 have nearly tripled those of 2023 before the start of December. Ironically, about half of this imported energy came from France, Switzerland, and Belgium, where nuclear power provides a substantial portion of the electricity supply.

Less than a year before the end of World War II, then-U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau drew up a nightmarish plan to punish postwar Germany.

After the serial 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II—along with the failed Versailles peace treaty of 1919—the Allies in World War II wanted to ensure there would never again be an aggressive Germany powerful enough to invade its neighbors.

When the so-called Morgenthau Plan was leaked to the press in September 1944, at first it was widely praised. After all, it would supposedly render Germany incapable of ever starting another world war in Europe.

Morgenthau certainly envisioned a Carthaginian peace, designed to ensure a permanently deindustrialized, unarmed, and pastoral Germany. //

When the dying Nazi Party got wind of the plan, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels had a field day. He screamed to Germans that they were all doomed to oblivion if they lost the war, even growing opponents of the Nazi Party.

Even many Americans were aghast at the plan.

Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief of staff, warned that its mere mention had galvanized German troops to fight to the end, increasing American casualties as they closed in on the German homeland.

Ex-President Herbert Hoover blasted the plan as inhumane. He feared mass starvation of the German people if they were reduced to a premodern, rural peasantry.

But once the victorious allies occupied a devastated Germany, witnessed its moonscape ruined by massive bombing and house-to-house fighting, and discovered that their “ally” Russia’s Josef Stalin was ruthless and hellbent on turning all of Europe communist, the Harry Truman administration backed off the plan.

There is a tragic footnote to the aborted horrors of the Morgenthau Plan. Currently, Germany is doing to itself almost everything Morgenthau once dreamed of.

Its green delusions have shut down far too many of its nuclear, coal, and gas electrical generation plants.

Erratic solar and wind “sustainable energy” means that power costs are four times higher than on average in the United States.

Once-dominant European giants Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes are now bleeding customers and profits. Their own government’s green and electric vehicle mandates ensure they will become globally uncompetitive.

The German economy actually shrank in 2023. And the diminished Ruhr can no longer save the German economy from its own utopian politicians.

The German military is all but disarmed and short thousands of recruits.

German industries do not produce enough ammunition, tanks, ships, and aircraft to equip even its diminished army, navy, and air force. //

After World War II, the Truman administration rejected the notion of a pastoral, deindustrialized, and insecure Germany as a cruel prescription for poverty, hunger, and depopulation.

But now the German people themselves voted for their own updated version of Morgenthau’s plan—as they willingly reduced factory hours, curtailed power and fuel supplies, and struggled with millions of illegal aliens and porous borders.

Germans accept that they have no military to speak of that could protect their insecure borders—without a United States-led NATO.

Eighty years ago, Germany’s former conquerors rejected wrecking the defeated nation as too harsh. But now Germany is willfully pastoralizing, disarming, deindustrializing—and destroying—itself.

The sudden desire to destroy trees for solar panels comes as the state risks failing to meet its own climate goal of 100% “clean” energy by 2040. If it doesn’t increase its development of so-called renewable energy, it won’t meet its arbitrary timeframe.

The 420 acres about to be bulldozed are part of 4,000 acres of public land that will be flattened to try and meet the 2040 deadline. //

Public land, even - meaning, presumably, land that is held by the state government in trust, as it were, for the people of the state of Michigan. Land that would otherwise be available for a variety of recreational uses, as most public land is.

Now, though, it will be destroyed in favor of solar panels that will take up an enormous amount of space to produce far less energy than a nuclear power plant would generate with a much, much smaller footprint.

This is ridiculous. //

To sum that up, solar arrays require 38 times more land to produce the same amount of electricity as one modern fission plant. Wind is even worse, requiring 140 times the land to produce that same amount of electricity - enough to power about 775,000 typical homes. That doesn't even take into account the issues with reliability or the necessity of battery backups for times when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. //

So, why do these "clean energy" goals never include nuclear power? Fission reactors are everything the climate scolds and "clean energy" types profess to want; modern reactors, including molten-salt and small modular reactors, are safe, efficient, and produce no carbon emissions. //

They are literally destroying the environment to protect the environment. //

ConservativeInMinnesota
an hour ago edited
This is another example of progressive greenwashing. This won’t help the environment, it won’t reduce carbon and it isn’t scalable. It also isn’t base power as it won’t work at night or as well depending on the weather. That means another power plant needs to be built o provide power when this doesn't.

Get real and start deploying nuclear energy. Stop buying Chinese solar panels (based on stolen US IP) and leave the trees alone. The real world pollution will be effectively nonexistent, there will be less carbon and we don’t have to give more money to the CCP. //

Quiverfull
22 minutes ago
The deer and the antelope do not play
In the middle of a gross solar array

In other words, people who own homes with garages and driveways can plug their cars right in, meaning they are topped up every day before they leave the house. But someone living in an apartment, like that one of mine from long ago? You are either dependent on fee-charging public charging stations, or you have to procure a really, really long drop cord.

The more people adopt EVs, the more you'll start to see this in American cities - some of those cities and even states are trying to force you to adopt EV use whether you like it or not.

Energy Expert Robert Bryce: “It is a colossal black eye for the wind industry, which has collected tens of billions of dollars in federal tax credits by claiming its landscape-blighting, bird-and-bat-killing, property-value-destroying turbines are an essential part of the effort to avert catastrophic climate change.”

Meredith Angwin @MeredithAngwin
·
Dec 23
Grid frequency drifting outside operational limits implies the system is running at the margins. https://watt-logic.com/2024/12/23/gb-grid-frequency/
Thanks to Kathryn Porter for this analysis!
From watt-logic.com

chrispydog @chrispydog
When I explain this stuff to people: "Have you seen when a spinning top starts to wobble, and what comes next?"

Most people 'get it' pretty fast.
4:34 PM · Dec 24, 2024. //

I then analysed the number of 15-second intervals in each winter season for which the operation or statutory limits were breached. The results are in the table below. As can be seen, in the past 4 years, there have been c 500 times the upper operational limit was breached, but in 2017 – 2019 the number was higher. The lower limit has tended to be breached less often – 2022 was an outlier with a very high number of breaches. There has also been a consistent trend of lower limit breaches increasing in frequency, which is consistent with falling grid inertia (see chart). //

This fits with the expected picture that the grid is becoming less reliable. It is also interesting that when individual occurrences are inspected, it is more often the case that frequency has drifted outside the operational range rather than suddenly falling out as would be expected from an outage. This is more worrying as it points to a general difficulty in maintaining stable frequency – things will always break and trip, and the grid is designed to deal with that, but these drifts outside the range speak more to a wider reduction in stability versus what is expected.

Here's the math behind making a star-encompassing megastructure.

In 1960, visionary physicist Freeman Dyson proposed that an advanced alien civilization would someday quit fooling around with kindergarten-level stuff like wind turbines and nuclear reactors and finally go big, completely enclosing their home star to capture as much solar energy as they possibly could. They would then go on to use that enormous amount of energy to mine bitcoin, make funny videos on social media, delve into the deepest mysteries of the Universe, and enjoy the bounties of their energy-rich civilization.

But what if the alien civilization was… us? What if we decided to build a Dyson sphere around our sun? Could we do it? How much energy would it cost us to rearrange our solar system, and how long would it take to get our investment back? Before we put too much thought into whether humanity is capable of this amazing feat, even theoretically, we should decide if it’s worth the effort. Can we actually achieve a net gain in energy by building a Dyson sphere? //

Even if we were to coat the entire surface of the Earth in solar panels, we would still only capture less than a tenth of a billionth of all the energy our sun produces. Most of it just radiates uselessly into empty space. We’ll need to keep that energy from radiating away if we want to achieve Great Galactic Civilization status, so we need to do some slight remodeling. We don’t want just the surface of the Earth to capture solar energy; we want to spread the Earth out to capture more energy. //

For slimmer, meter-thick panels operating at 90 percent efficiency, the game totally changes. At 0.1 AU, the Earth would smear out a third of the sun, and we would get a return on our energy investment in around a year. As for Jupiter, we wouldn’t even have to go to 0.1 AU. At a distance about 30 percent further out than that, we could achieve the unimaginable: completely enclosing our sun. We would recoup our energy cost in only a few hundred years, and we could then possess the entirety of the sun’s output from then on. //

MichalH Smack-Fu Master, in training
4y
62

euknemarchon said:
I don't get it. Why wouldn't you use asteroid material?
The mass of all asteroids amounts to only 3% of the earth's moon. Not worth chasing them down, I'd guess. //

DCStone Ars Tribunus Militum
14y
2,313
"But [Jupiter]’s mostly gas; it only has about five Earth’s worth of rocky material (theoretically—we’re not sure) buried under thousands of kilometers of mostly useless gas. We'd have to unbind the whole dang thing, and then we don’t even get to use most of the mass of the planet."

Hmm. If we can imagine being able to unbind rocky planets, we can also imagine fusing the gas atmosphere of Jupiter to make usable material (think giant colliders). Jupiter has a mass of about 1.9 x 10^27 kg, of which ~5% is rocky core. We'd need to make some assumptions about the energy required to fuse the atmosphere into something usable (silicon and oxygen to make silicates?) and the efficiency of that process. Does it do enough to change the overall calculation though? //

Dark Jaguar Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9y
11,066
The bigger issue is the sphere wouldn't be gravitationally locked in place because the sun is cancelling it's own pull in every direction. Heck even Ringworld had to deal with this flaw in the sequel. That's why these days the futurists talking about enclosing the sun recommend "Dyson swarming" instead.

Edit: A little additional note. You can't really get the centrifugal force needed to generate artificial gravity across an entire sphere like you can with a ring. A swarm doesn't negate this. If you orbit fast enough to generate that artificial gravity, you're now leaving the sun behind. Enjoy drifting endlessly! No, rather each of these swarm objects are just going to have to rotate themselves decently fast.

The summer of 2023 may be remembered as an important point in human civilization as the threat to critical and efficient energy supplies began to recede.

Sweden’s government has ditched plans to go all-in on “green energy,” green-lighting the construction of new nuclear power plants. Fossil fuel giant Shell announced it was scaling back its energy transition plans to focus on . . . gas and oil! Specific wind farm projects began to topple due to strong economic headwinds because the cost of the electricity to be generated was deemed too high. //

A little closer to home, Deep Blue California has recently announced the state is delaying the closure of 3 fossil-fuel-based power plants.

The reason? The green energy fantasies are not compatible with actual power realities. //

As has long been the case, the largest single source of electricity in California comes from natural gas.

The amount of natural gas in the state’s mix of energy resources has been reduced by about one-fifth in the past 10 years, falling from 130,995 gigawatt-hours in 2012 to 104,495 in 2022. //

CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 1, 2023 at 8:34 pm
One way to actually help the environment is cut down on additional transmission lines. How about limiting imported electricity in each State to 10% of peak demand and tying that to the ability of the State to receive any waivers? So if CA isn’t generating 90% of peak electricity demand (they ain’t) then CA no longer gets to set their own more stringent standards for fossil fuels, types of appliances, airborne particulate matter, fuel efficiency in vehicles and so on. All they gotta do to regain their current ability to disrupt national markets is be willing to generate 90% of their peak electric demand. Maybe add in State refining capacity for special fuel blends as well; not just from already ‘cracked’ product imported from elsewhere but from crude oil. Surely CA would want to do that in their State with their enlightened and virtuous environmental safeguards? Since they’re so much smarter, better, virtuous and more caring than the rest of us. /s?

SpaceWeatherNews @SunWeatherMan
·
Trying to shoot a hole in this argument. Can’t. Any takers?
prayingforexits 🏴‍☠️
@mrexits
He is kind of asking the right questions here

There exist magic rocks that can boil water.

Boiling water gives us energy.

We stop using magic rocks because they exploded that one time.

Are we re*ed? Imagine if pre historic (sic) peoples stopped using fire because some red burnt his house down once.
10:54 AM · Dec 2, 2024

It's an interesting question. It's also a great illustration of the irrational thinking in some quarters when things like climate change are concerned. The fact is that nuclear energy is safer, with a lower rate of injury, than any energy method other than solar.

Climate scolds, people who want to keep the earth at some human-approved level, are all about "clean energy." They love the intermittent, low-energy-density sources - windmills, solar power - but can't abide and will not discuss nuclear power or "magic rocks." And when it comes to energy density, there just isn't any comparison. One fuel pellet of uranium in a light-water reactor produces as much energy as 1.3 tons of coal, 250 gallons of oil, and 34,000 cubic feet of natural gas. In a breeder reactor, the numbers are much higher: 22 tons of coal, 4,350 gallons of oil, and 590,000 cubic feet of natural gas. //

Forget what climate scolds claim to want. Look at what they are in favor of: You (not they) reducing your standard of living to meet their claimed goals. Look at the actions of the high-profile members of the opposition: Jetting around the globe in private jets, living in huge mansions a few feet above the tide line in the oceans they claim are rising out of control. They expect you to pay the price they aren’t willing to.

Do you want clean energy? This is clean energy. It's safe energy. No “still just thirty years away” fusion boondoggles are required. Not that fusion wouldn’t be even greater if we can make it work on an industrial scale, but how long have various organizations been trying to make that happen? This technology, nuclear power, especially the promising small modular reactors, is a technology we have now.

The new, improved small modular reactors described above could and should be built today. Technological societies like ours are dependent on abundant, cheap energy, and nuclear power has the ability to provide that power. Throughout our history, every major technological advance in power – from animal to machine, from wood to coal to oil to gas – has had one key characteristic in common, and that is increased energy density. Nuclear power represents just such an increase over generating electricity with coal or gas. Solar and wind power run in just the opposite direction, which is why they don’t scale up. //

anon-j5pd
a day ago
I’m an engineer and was a nuclear operator in the Navy. I’m a big supporter of nuclear power.
My dad used to work at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in AZ. It’s the biggest nuke in the country.
Just for fun I calculated the area of solar panels required to match Palo Verde’s output. It would require a field of panels 25 miles on a side, 625 square miles of panels. I used the power conversion factor and highest rate of sunlight incidence on the panels.
Palo Verde churns out the same amount of power day and night and isn’t impacted by dust. //

They Call Me Bruce
a day ago
Can't argue with a word of this.

As for safety, I used to be fond of pointing out that more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than in every civilian nuclear accident in the US combined.

We expect an increase in reliability in modern tech – unless one is a climate scold, and unless the topic in question is solar and wind power:

Wind and solar have been growing as a share of US electrical power generation over the last two decades. State and federal mandates and subsidies have driven the expansion of renewables because of their inherently and intermittent nature. But it’s clear that renewable electricity sources have a third strike: they are fragile and prone to weather damage and destruction. //

In May 2019, a massive hailstorm in West Texas destroyed 400,000 solar modules of the Midway Solar Project, about 60% of the facility. The project was only one year old. The system was rebuilt, costing insurers more than $70 million. //

This whole problem presents a doom loop of unreliable and fragile electrical generation. The climate scolds would have us believe that the weather is growing hotter/colder/more unpredictable because of human activity causing climate change. And to solve the climate change that we have supposedly solved, we must restrict further our use of reliable energy sources for unreliable and fragile "green" energy systems like solar and wind power, which clutter up the landscape and are less reliable and more expensive than the traditional source.

His latest endeavor, "Landman," centers on the oil industry and contrasts the lives of Texas-based tycoons and workers, and one clip is already going viral. Billy Bob Thorton, who plays "Tommy Norris" in the show, lays out the reality of wind turbines and the human need for fossil fuels in a way that will have you fist-pumping. //

TOMMY NORRIS: Do you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete? Or make that steel and haul this ** out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? Do you want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that ***** thing? Or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don't get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Telsa battery. //

TOMMY NORRIS: And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don't have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It'd take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our lives depend on it. And hell, it's in everything. That road we came in on. The wheels on every car, including yours. It's in tennis rackets and lipstick, refrigerators and antihistamines, pretty much anything plastic, your cellphone case, artificial heart valves, any kind of clothing that's not made with animal or plant fibers, soap, hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats, you name it. Every thing, and you want to know what the kicker is? We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement. //

I will mention that some people have questioned that last sentence which states "We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement." Is that true? In a macro sense, sure. Humans will eventually reach a point where they can't get to what is left of the Earth's fossil fuels. With that said, past hysteria surrounding the specific timeline has proven to be false and will likely continue to be proven to be false as more reserves are discovered and newer extraction techniques are developed. //

TOMMY NORRIS: No, the thing that's gonna kill us all is running out before we find an alternative, and believe me, if Exxon thought them things right there were the future, they'd be putting them all over the place. Getting oil out of the ground is the most dangerous job in the world. We don't do it because we like it. We do it because we've run out of options.

For my money, this is the most important part of the clip. No one has more of an incentive to pursue and dominate the market for "renewables" than the oil companies. They also happen to have the most capital to do so.

If the oil companies thought wind turbines or solar panels were a viable alternative to fossil fuels, they'd be first in line to seize the market because, in the end, it's all about sustainability in making money for them. That they aren't is the biggest tell. Yes, Chevron and Exxon dabble in the sector, mostly for public relations reasons, but it's clear they aren't believers. //

DavidW
14 hours ago
If the wind is not blowing hard enough to get the turbines to turn, they have to use electricity (from gas/coal) to turn the blades, otherwise they will warp if they are in one position too long. In the winter they have to use electricity to keep the gear boxes unfrozen (if they are using oil-based gearboxes). AND, while the life of the turbine might be 20 years, the life of the blades are less thanks to the sandpaper effect of dust-laden wind on them. And of course ethanol isn't the miracle either - I read that it can take several gallons of "fossil" fuel (diesel or gas) to create one gallon of ethanol.

Let's hope that Trump can break this cycle of stupidity and get us on the right track toward real energy independence. //

headhunt DavidW
13 hours ago
The amount of water needed to produce ethanol dwarfs what is needed from oil based product.
Huge areas of the Midwest/west have sunk well over 20' all to feed a political, ineffective, fuel additive. //

mopani Geowhiziker
a few minutes ago
Given how essential and useful they are for so many non-fuel products, people in the future will look back on this era with astonishment that we wasted hydrocarbons by burning them. //

mopani Jason A Jones
10 minutes ago
Look at the distribution of the most common elements in the universe: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are in the top 5 (H2 is #1 of course).

Assume that this same distribution existed when the earth was formed and the large amounts of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon were trapped inside our planet.

H2+O2 + heat+ pressure = water

H2 + C + heat + pressure= hydrocarbons (not fossil fuel!)

Is being squeezed out of the earth under pressure.

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that in my post on the United Nations climate conference in Azerbaijan this week, its president boldly declared that oil and gas were a ‘gift from God’.

The eco-activists attending the event were enraged.

The climate cultists will likely be working themselves up into even more hysteria because of another climate conference that occurred mid-November in the Czech Republic city of Prague.

The Czech division of the International Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague on November 12-13, 2024, where climate scientists declared that the “climate emergency” is over. The conference concluded with a communiqué drafted by the participating scientists and researchers that targeted the climate hysteria promoted by the United Nations body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.’

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

The declaration has 18 different point referencing climate science and facts that counter the narratives being pushed by the IPCC and those who want to push their green agendas. //

1 The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.

2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual. //

Though I have to say, #17 is a favorite of mine:

17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.

But, perhaps most importantly, the conference attendees demand the end of persecution of those researchers doing real science who struggle to share their reasonable and reliable findings whenever the data counters the political narratives.

It didn't take long for the media to run a hit piece on Chris Wright, who President-elect Donald Trump nominated as his Secretary of Energy. Wright, the founder and CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, a fracking company, was nominated earlier this week; see NEW: Trump Taps Fracking Exec As Next Energy Secretary. Today, Reuters is on the move with a story headlined: Trump energy pick wrote ESG report hailing oil, gas, downplaying climate worry.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the energy department believes fossil fuels are the key to ending world poverty which, he says, is a greater problem than climate change's "distant" threat, according to a report he penned as CEO of oilfield services company Liberty Energy.

In a corporate report released in February called 'Bettering Human Lives,' Chris Wright said that the energy transition has not begun and that climate change, while a challenge, is not the greatest threat to humans.

Poverty is a bigger threat that can be alleviated with access to hydrocarbons, said Wright, who started a foundation aimed at expanding propane cook stoves in developing countries. //

Wright wrote "the wealthy world has gone beyond over-optimism surrounding the breadth and scalability of a narrow slice of alternative energy and, unfortunately, has rushed head-long into outright obstruction of hydrocarbon infrastructure and production." //

Wright places the welfare of people and communities above scientific grift. He supports what works and is critical of what doesn't and can't work...looking at you, wind and solar. He understands that energy production is inextricably linked to our freedom and prosperity. This bill of indictment against Wright should be read into the Congressional Record ...

Wayne SW says:
January 13, 2015 at 11:09 PM

Well, you identified a major part of the problem. Those wind farms don’t harvest wind so much as they harvest subsidies. And governments are the ones who put those subsidies in place. In my state (Ohio), the state government is mulling removing the state portion of those subsidies, and the unreliable energy lobbyists are raising holy hell. They say they won’t proceed with any new projects without those subsidies. That right there tells me how they are making their money. And of course they also lobby for high-priced PPAs, while you have travelling anti-nuclear activists decrying PPAs for any company with nuclear plants (they say it shows the nukes need “subsidies”).

Instead of needing constant power, new system adjusts to use whatever is available. //

“Unlike reverse osmosis, electrodialysis is an electrically driven process,” Bessette says. The membranes are arranged in such a way that the water is not pushed through them but flows along them. On both sides of those membranes are positive and negative electrodes that create an electric field, which draws salt ions through the membranes and out of the water. //

The two most important parameters in electrodialysis desalination are the flow rate of the water and the power you apply to the electrodes. To make the process efficient, you need to match those two. The advantage of electrodialysis is that it can operate at different power levels. When you have more available power, you can just pump more water through the system. When you have less power, you can slow the system down by reducing the water flow rate. You’ll produce less freshwater, but you won’t break anything this way. //

Octavus Ars Scholae Palatinae
18y
1,115
On average, it desalinated around 5,000 liters of water per day—enough for a community of roughly 2,000 people.
Is 2.5L per day really enough per person when that is below the adequate intake levels according to the Institute of Medicine? Let alone for other purposes such as cooking and hygiene.

The Institute of Medicine has recommended adequate intake (AI) values for total water at levels to prevent dehydration. The AI for men aged 19+ is 3.7 liters each day, and 3 liters (13 cups) of which should be consumed as beverages. The AI for women aged 19+ is 2.7 liters about 2.2 liters (9 cups) of which should be consumed as beverages each day.
Water: An Important Part of a Healthy Winter Diet : USDA ARS //

Team Tardigrade Ars Centurion
4y
370
Octavus said:
Is 2.5L per day really enough per person when that is below the adequate intake levels according to the Institute of Medicine? Let alone for other purposes such as cooking and hygiene.

Water: An Important Part of a Healthy Winter Diet : USDA ARS
Like most other things in medicine and science there are different viewpoints on what total water intake needs to be. This study says an average minimum of 1.8 L. I've seen several textbooks that list anything from 1.5 to 2.5 L. I've also see other estimates going as high as 3.5-4 L. Age, sex, renal function, diet, and metabolic disease all have impacts on these numbers.

In 2022, Florida was third in the nation, after California and Texas, in total solar power generating capacity, and solar energy accounted for more than 5% of Florida’s total net generation. About four-fifths of the state’s solar generation came from utility-scale (1 megawatt or larger) facilities. //

The Lake Placid Solar Power Plant is located in Highlands County, Fla., and suffered damage during Hurricane Milton. The facility opened in December 2019 and is 45 megawatts, which is enough to power more than 12,000 homes at peak production. //

The frequency of major storms and the costs associated with repair from them must be an essential part of any calculation when deciding if a new power facility is right for the region. It appears that green energy activists aren’t providing this data, but rather their visions of would should be based on their beliefs.

Theology is no way to power a civilization. //

rebelgirl in reply to CommoChief. | October 15, 2024 at 8:26 am
My son is a commercial electrician who works on residential and commercial solar installations. He says he would never have it.
They install the panels on roofs where no one takes into account the problems involved with reaching the source of a potential attic fire. //

Joe-dallas in reply to CommoChief. | October 15, 2024 at 5:01 pm
Correct – the capacity factor for solar during summer is around 35%
The capacity factor in the winter is around 6%

The texas freeze fiasco of Feb 2021,
Solar was producing around 12% capacity factor across the entire nation and a DROP of 60% – 70% wind production across the entire NORTH AMERICAN Continent for 7 DAYS

Florida State Fire Marshal Jimmy Patronis on Tuesday said there have been 16 fires during and after Hurricane Helene attributed to lithium-ion batteries used in Tesla and other electric vehicles, golf carts and other vehicles and devices. //

For cultists worried about climate change, a roaring fire hitting 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit will change the local climate quickly and disastrously.

Typically, an EV fire burns at roughly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 Celsius), while a gasoline-powered vehicle on fire burns at 1,500 F (815 C). It takes about 2,000 gallons of water to extinguish a burning gasoline-powered vehicle; putting out an EV fire can take 10 times more. //

A tractor-trailer carrying large lithium-ion batteries overturned and caught on fire on a highway near the Port of Los Angeles on Thursday, snarling traffic and leading to road closures and the shuttering of several terminals at the port.

The Los Angeles Fire Department said in a statement Thursday night that the fire was expected to burn for at least another 24 to 48 hours and that a roughly seven-mile stretch of California State Route 47, from the Vincent Thomas Bridge to Long Beach, would be closed in that period.

The Port of Los Angeles, the busiest port in the Western Hemisphere, said that several terminals would be closed on Friday.

…The explosion caused the batteries to ignite, causing a “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction in which heat develops extremely quickly, Capt. Adam Van Gerpen of the Los Angeles Fire Department told reporters.

Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs.

Inertia refers to a system’s capability to resist change. For a power grid, greater synchronous inertia confers greater ability to resist frequency changes. //

In contrast to gigantic 2,256 megawatt nuclear power plants such as Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) near San Luis Obispo, California which provide very large amounts of synchronous grid inertia, so-called inverter-based resources (IBRs) such as solar powered generators, wind power generators, and batteries supply negligible amounts of synchronous grid inertia. //

Prior to the introduction of significant penetrations of IBRs, each power grid's synchronous generators (coal and natural gas-fired generators, large hydroelectric dams, geothermal plants, and nuclear power plants) had sufficient synchronous grid inertia to assure power grid stability. The synchronous generators have a large amount of rotational inertia as a consequence of having massive rotating turbines and massive rotating generator rotors. (See photograph below.)

As a simplified example, each of the pair of DCPP’s generators have rotating components which weigh in excess of a million pounds (500 tons.) DCPP’s turbines rotate 30 times per second. The rotating magnetic field induces the 60 cycle per second (Hertz) AC voltage (25,000 Volts) and AC current (45,120 Amperes) in the stator windings of each unit. In response to perturbations in grid frequency, the rotational kinetic energy can be instantaneously converted to changes in the output power of the generator which tend to stabilize the generator’s output frequency and voltage.