Month: March 2017

James Delingpole Dumps on the Great Wind Power Fraud

James Delingpole Dumps on the Great Wind Power Fraud

via Tallbloke’s Talkshophttps://tallbloke.wordpress.com

.
.
The tide is starting to turn, in America at least.

STOP THESE THINGS

01-coal-640x480

James Delingpole has been slugging it out with lunatics from the Greenblob for more than a decade. Now, as the world wakes up to the scale and scope of the great wind power fraud, Slim Jim finds himself on the right side of history. Here he is letting the world know about it.

Why Renewables Are Doomed and Fossil Fuels Are the Future
Breitbart
James Delingpole
9 February 2017

We’re on the verge of a new energy revolution. Except it’s the exact opposite of the one the “experts” at places like BP, the International Energy Agency and – ahem – the Guardian are predicting.

For years we’ve been assured by politicians, energy industry specialists and green advocates that renewables such as wind and solar are getting more and more cost-competitive while dirty fossil fuels are so discredited and wrong and evil we’ll soon have to leave them in the ground.

But…

View original post 2,001 more words

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

March 7, 2017 at 07:51PM

New EPA Head Stacks Agency With Climate Sceptics

New EPA Head Stacks Agency With Climate Sceptics

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)http://www.thegwpf.com

Scott Pruitt, the new head of EPA, has moved to stock the top offices of the agency with like-minded conservatives — many of them skeptics of climate change and all of them intent on rolling back environmental regulations that they see as overly intrusive and harmful to business.

pruitt1-master768

Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, last month. He built a career suing the agency he now leads. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Days after the Senate confirmed him as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference and was asked about addressing a group that probably wanted to eliminate his agency.

“I think it’s justified,” he responded, to cheers. “I think people across the country look at the E.P.A. the way they look at the I.R.S.”

In the days since, Mr. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who built a career out of suing the agency he now leads, has moved to stock the top offices of the agency with like-minded conservatives — many of them skeptics of climate change and all of them intent on rolling back environmental regulations that they see as overly intrusive and harmful to business.

Mr. Pruitt has drawn heavily from the staff of his friend and fellow Oklahoma Republican, Senator James Inhofe, long known as Congress’s most prominent skeptic of climate science. A former Inhofe chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, will be Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff. Another former Inhofe staff member, Byron Brown, will serve as Mr. Jackson’s deputy. Andrew Wheeler, a fossil fuel lobbyist and a former Inhofe chief of staff, is a finalist to be Mr. Pruitt’s deputy, although he requires confirmation to the position by the Senate.

To friends and critics, Mr. Pruitt seems intent on building an E.P.A. leadership that is fundamentally at odds with the career officials, scientists and employees who carry out the agency’s missions. That might be a recipe for strife and gridlock at the federal agency tasked to keep safe the nation’s clean air and water while safeguarding the planet’s future.

“He’s the most different kind of E.P.A. administrator that’s ever been,” said Steve J. Milloy, a member of the E.P.A. transition team who runs the website JunkScience.com, which aims to debunk climate change. “He’s not coming in thinking E.P.A. is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Quite the opposite.”

Gina McCarthy, who headed the E.P.A. under former President Barack Obama, said she too saw Mr. Pruitt as unique. “It’s fine to have differing opinions on how to meet the mission of the agency. Many Republican administrators have had that,” she said. “But here, for the first time, I see someone who has no commitment to the mission of the agency.”

A pair of Trump campaigners from Washington State are also heading into senior positions at the E.P.A. Don Benton, a former Washington state senator who headed President Trump’s state campaign, will be the agency’s senior liaison with the White House. Douglas Ericksen, a current Washington state senator, is being considered as the regional administrator of the E.P.A.’s Pacific Northwest office.

As a state senator, Mr. Ericksen has been active in opposing efforts to pass a state-level climate change law taxing carbon pollution. Last month, he invited Tony Heller, a climate denialist (sic) who blogs under the pseudonym Steven Goddard, to address a Washington State Senate committee on the costs of climate change policy. Mr. Heller’s blog says “global warming is the biggest fraud in science history.”

“I think the reason both of these guys are being considered for this stuff is they were the only prominent elected officials in the state of Washington that were early supporters and organizers for Trump,” said Todd Donovan, a political scientist at Western Washington University. “No other state legislators were putting their necks out for Trump.”

Another transition official under consideration by Mr. Pruitt for a permanent position is David Kreutzer, a senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has publicly praised the benefits of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That view stands in opposition to the broad scientific consensus that increased carbon dioxide traps heat and contributes to the dangerous warming of the planet.

The agency’s policy agenda is snapping into focus: Last week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order directing Mr. Pruitt to begin the legal process of dismantling a major Obama-era regulation aimed at increasing the federal government’s authority over rivers, streams and wetlands in order to prevent water pollution. Also last week, Mr. Pruitt ordered the agency to walk back a program on collecting data on methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas wells.

This week, Mr. Trump is expected to sign an executive order directing Mr. Pruitt to begin the legal process of unwinding Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. regulations aimed at curbing planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants, and Mr. Pruitt is expected to announce plans to begin to weaken an Obama-era rule mandating higher fuel economy standards.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 7, 2017 at 07:21PM

‘No Left Turns’ (self-interested conservation at UPS)

‘No Left Turns’ (self-interested conservation at UPS)

via Master Resourcehttps://www.masterresource.org

“UPS engineers found while studying the performance of its truck fleet that left-hand turns were a major drag on efficiency.  Turning against traffic resulted in long waits in left-hand turn lanes that wasted time and fuel, and it also led to a disproportionate number of accidents.”

“The [Mythbusters] program sent a truck out to deliver packages following a normal route and one employing the left-turn hating UPS route. They found the UPS approach saved gas but took a bit longer.”

While it is hard to believe that you can drive longer and go farther and actually save gasoline, United Parcel Services Inc. (UPS), the ubiquitous package delivery service famous for its brown trucks and drivers’ uniforms, has proven this scenario to be true.

Back in 2004, UPS announced it would begin a policy of planning its delivery routes in such a way as to avoid making left-hand turns.  They have stuck with the policy ever since.

This decision came after the logistics company developed better tracking devices for its trucks and began studying how to improve their efficiency. As a nationwide delivery service, UPS operates over 96,000 trucks and several hundred airplanes in the competitive package delivery business. Improving efficiency was a top goal for improving profitability.

UPS always understood that its performance required a series of optimization decisions about saving time, using less fuel, and maximizing space utilization. With the advent of improved vehicle tracking devices in 2001, UPS was able to identify areas where it was less efficient in the use of its equipment and employees, and where operations might be improved by changing procedures.

UPS engineers found while studying the performance of its truck fleet that left-hand turns were a major drag on efficiency.  Turning against traffic resulted in long waits in left-hand turn lanes that wasted time and fuel, and it also led to a disproportionate number of accidents.

Thus, the company undertook a significant operational shift by instituting a policy for trucks to avoid making left-hand turns even if it meant a truck had to make multiple right-hand turns and driver farther in order to complete a loop and reach a location.

Most drivers would say that the shortest distance between two points is what should govern route-setting even if it means making a left-hand turn. Amazingly, even if a UPS delivery truck traveled farther and took more time, the entire process proved to be more efficient and profitable for UPS.

In fact, this no-left-hand-turn policy, coupled with some other minor operational improvements, led to an estimated savings of 10 million gallons of fuel for UPS in 2012. At $2 per gallon, that meant a cost savings of $20 million.

“I can see a few of you smiling out there, and I know what you may be thinking,” stated the CEO of UPS after making these points to an audience. “But it really works.”

Mythbusters Tests

So skeptical were people that Discovery channel’s acclaimed science show Mythbusters decided to test the UPS claim. The program sent a truck out to deliver packages following a normal route and one employing the left-turn hating UPS route. They found the UPS approach saved gas but took a bit longer.

It is possible that Mythbusters failed to save time on the route by following the UPS rule even more stringently that its drivers do.  We, and we’re sure you, too, have seen UPS drivers making left turns occasionally.  It is usually in residential neighborhoods without much oncoming traffic. Asked by one of the Mythbusters hosts how often UPS drivers turn right, a driver said, “A guesstimate, I would probably say 90%.  I mean, we really, really hate left turns at UPS.”

UPS Traffic Engineering

UPS uses computer software to map its drivers’ routes, which tend to be heavily right-hand turn oriented. In some situations, it will call for left-hand turns when they are easier and faster than the alternative. Those turns are generally in areas where traffic is light. As one senior VP of UPS put it, “That’s why I love the engineers, they just love to continue to figure out how to make it better.”

Should We Change?

How often have you observed a vehicle sitting in left-hand turning lanes waiting for a clear path across four lanes of traffic in order to turn into a shopping center parking lot. How long they have to sit there before getting that opportunity to turn left? Sometimes we have to know because we are behind them.

Why not at least consider taking a right turn instead to take a later U-turn? Based on the flow of the traffic this strategy would likely save time, even if they have to drive farther.

More fuel for saved time: that’s a trade that a lot of folks would make–just like UPS drivers.

The post ‘No Left Turns’ (self-interested conservation at UPS) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

March 7, 2017 at 05:58PM

SERIOUS TROUBLE WITH SO-CALLED SMART METERS

SERIOUS TROUBLE WITH SO-CALLED SMART METERS

via climate sciencehttp://climatescience.blogspot.com/

This piece in the Mail looks at a study by specialists into the accuracy of the Smart Meters and its findings are very worrying. These meters are so hopeless that they can’t cope with such everyday items as low energy light bulbs. Despite this a government spokesman said he has full confidence in them. Says it all, doesn’t it? I wonder what the public will say?

via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

March 7, 2017 at 05:00PM