Month: March 2017

German Physicist On Electric Cars: “Slaying Of Beautiful Hypothesis By An Ugly Fact”

German Physicist On Electric Cars: “Slaying Of Beautiful Hypothesis By An Ugly Fact”

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

Though Vince Ebert makes his living as a prominent cabaret artist in Germany, he is in fact a trained physicist who has a good understanding of science and is thus quite able to see it when someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Prominent cabaret artist, physicist Vince Ebert says electric cars nowhere near what they are portrayed to be. Image cropped from Facebook here.

One example is Germany’s “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies) where Germany is attempting to wean itself off fossil fuels and to supply its energy needs almost completely with green energies such as wind and sun.

One aim Germany has is to convert all its motor vehicles on the street over the electric vehicles. In fact some green politicians have even called for banning the registration of fossil fuel cars by 2030.

So just how feasible (or absurd) is the proposal? Ebert points out in an opinion piece here, that is a lot easier said than done. Clearly the whole idea is in fact quite absurd.

First he notes that electric cars are a long way from having the over 700+ kilometer range of fossil fuel cars and that electric cars reaching that range are “dreams of the future“.

Quarter million wind turbines

Another major obstacle is the lack of charging stations. Even if Germany managed to put merely 1 million electric cars on its streets, Ebert calculates that this would necessitate the construction of 35,000 wind turbines.

However in Germany there are in fact some 6o million vehicles on the road, and “if every driver charged his car for 30 minutes every second day” and did so evenly distributed over a smart grid, “we would need 140 new power plants or 220,000 wind turbines“…which is almost 10 times more than what is already installed.

This is an enormous number — and it would only be enough for the electric cars and not even include the tens of millions of households, businesses and industry that together need even more power than Germany’s transportation sector.

Worse than fossil fuels

Another problem, Ebert points out, is the enormous size of the batteries. In order to replace the 30 liters of petrol of a conventional car, an electric vehicle needs a modern lithium battery weighing some 900 kilograms. Supplying the hundreds of millions of cars in operation worldwide with the lithium and neodymium would be nowhere near sustainable, Ebert writes. He also cites findings by Germany’s renowned Fraunhofer Institute:

Moreover the Fraunhofer-Institute for Structural Physics concluded that the manufacture and recycling of modern batteries has a negative impact on the ecological budget when compared to the fossil fuel engines.”

In a nutshell, electric cars would only make the environment much worse.

Then there are the organizational aspects of using electric car batteries, Ebert reminds us, asking readers to imagine millions of Germans all leaving at once for summer holidays on the autobahns and then all of them trying to charge their vehicles all at once along the motorway after a just couple of hours of driving. Huge traffic jams would form as cars charge up at stations at the rest areas. While a fossil fuel car can fill up in a matter of minutes, electric cars would be blocking the charging stations for an hour or more. It would be total chaos and mayhem.

Ebert summarizes his opinion on the rush to electric cars by quoting biologist Thomas Huxley:

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

March 22, 2017 at 07:59AM

House Science Committee Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method

House Science Committee Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method

via Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com

by Judith Curry

Witnesses:  John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.

The hearing will be held next week, March 29.  The announcement for the Hearing is [here].

I’ve completed my written testimony, I will post it Wednesday once the Hearing has commenced.

This Hearing is interesting on several fronts:

  • It includes 3 of the Grijalva 7
  • It is the first time I will be on the same panel as Michael Mann.

This should be high theater for climate geeks.

Get your popcorn ready.

via Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com

March 22, 2017 at 07:43AM

#ExxonKnew and Schneiderman get hoisted by their own petard

#ExxonKnew and Schneiderman get hoisted by their own petard

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Schneiderman Continues Media Strategy in Court Hearing with Meaningless “Bombshell” Claim

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office attempted once again to manufacture an email controversy, proclaiming in a letter that Exxon had refused “to comply in good faith with OAG’s investigative subpoena dated November 4, 2015,” and characterizing it as a “bombshell” in a court hearing held today.

Meanwhile, here’s the real bombshell: the Daily Caller has just reported that legal discoveries show Lem Srolovic, the Assistant Attorney General in Schneiderman’s office, used a personal Gmail address to converse with activist organizations in 2012. This news comes just after Schneiderman’s office tried to make a big deal about an alternate email for former Exxon president and CEO Rex Tillerson (which was a company-issued account, not a Gmail address, by the way) that was used to speed up communications with company leadership. Also let’s not forget that Srolovic was the guy who told #ExxonKnew activist Matt Pawa not to tell a reporter that he secretly briefed the AGs ahead of their now infamous March 29th press conference with Al Gore.

It’s worth noting that Schneiderman’s office will appear in court next week to answer for his refusal to turn over emails between his office and major donors of the #ExxonKnew campaign – including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, and billionaire activist Tom Steyer, which date back to before the original #ExxonKnew hit pieces by the Rockefeller-funded InsideClimate News and Columbia School of Journalism were published.

In court today, the judge made it very clear that a letter written on behalf of Exxon addressed many of Schneiderman’s accusations, and he even highlighted a “rule of proportionality” regarding the AG’s continued effort to gather more materials from Exxon – despite the thousands of documents already provided. ExxonMobil pointed out that the “rule of this Court” is that Schneiderman must consult with Exxon prior to taking the matter to court – of course, in his pursuit of headlines, Schneiderman failed to do this. From the letter on behalf of ExxonMobil:

“The Attorney General’s fears of a widespread loss of data at ExxonMobil are entirely unfounded, and ExxonMobil is already taking steps to provide the Attorney General with the relief he seeks in his letter. Other than providing further evidence of his penchant for hyperbole and sensationalism in his ever-shifting investigation, the Attorney General’s letter serves principally to highlight why consultation between the parties prior to seeking Court intervention is not just a rule of this Court, but also a prudent approach to routine discovery disputes like this one […] The Attorney General should have complied with this Court’s rules and made a bona fide effort to pursue consultation before returning once again to court.” (emphasis added)

Schneiderman’s office attempted to justify this by saying that it had emailed Exxon its request for more documents and “Receiv[ed] no timely response…” But Schneiderman’s office fails to mention it emailed Exxon only mere hours before it went to court and to the press. That’s a pretty strange interpretation of “timely.”

Today’s hearing also puts the spotlight on how this entire dispute hinges on the fact that Schneiderman has changed the reason for his investigation no less than three times, after he realized that that his previous justification – namely #ExxonKnew – was not working out for him. Because of this, Exxon notes that Schneiderman originally said not to prioritize emails from senior management, or the “Management Committee Custodians,” as his priority was documents from thirty years ago when he was investigating what Exxon “knew.” Again, from the letter:

“The Attorney General faults ExxonMobil for not making a substantial production of documents from the Management Committee Custodians until the end of 2016 […] the Attorney General repeatedly instructed ExxonMobil to place the production of other custodians ahead of the Management Committee Custodians. In accordance with the Attorney General’s priorities and initial investigative thesis, ExxonMobil first produced over 109,000 documents from four custodians who studied climate science […] ” When these documents evidently refuted his investigative theory, the Attorney General informed ExxonMobil that his new “priority” was documents from certain enumerated custodians who contributed to the preparation of a 2014 report entitled “Energy and Carbon – Managing the Risks,” and those on ExxonMobil’s greenhouse gas issue management team. (Email from M. Wagner to P. Conlon, dated Feb. 3, 2016.) In those instructions, the Attorney General expressly stated that review of the custodial files of senior managers, such as Mr. Tillerson, was a secondary priority.” (emphasis added)

As the letter further explains,

The documents of the Management Committee Custodians became a priority for the Attorney General only after this Court rebuffed his efforts to obtain documents outside the scope of the subpoena, during a November 21, 2016 court appearance.” (emphasis added)

All of this boils down to the fact that it’s been nearly one year since Schneiderman hosted his March 29th press conference with Al Gore where the Democratic AGs touted their investigations of ExxonMobil. They have nothing to show for it – but if one thing has become clear throughout this process, they’ve certainly got a lot to hide.

Link to blog post: http://ift.tt/2nD1KTK

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 22, 2017 at 07:05AM

Gottleibsen: Australian Energy Crisis “criminal” with 75% chance of blackout

Gottleibsen: Australian Energy Crisis “criminal” with 75% chance of blackout

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

Last days before Hazelwood shuts down.

Robert Gottleibsen in The Australian a couple of days ago has investigated our energy crisis, and discovered our old centralized grid design is quite likely to fall over next summer in an incredibly expensive way. It’s nice that he did some research and even talked to engineers:

The looming crisis is much worse than I expected. Three state governments, Victoria NSW and South Australia, have vandalised our total energy system. The Premiers of each state clearly had no idea what they were doing and did not sit down with top engineers outside the government advisers to work out the best way to achieve their objectives — whether that be an increase in renewables or gas restrictions.

He warns that it is potentially criminal:

I have been alerted that in the 1995 Federal Criminal Code under Section 137.1 in Chapter 7 there is a section entitled ‘Good administration of government’.

Me? I remain a cynic (not that I’m a lawyer). The legislation has been there since 1995, threatens 12 months in prison for “misleading information”. It can’t be this simple.

Still it would be good if politicians were scared into doing […]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

March 22, 2017 at 06:59AM