Month: February 2020

Quantifying Futility: an estimate of future Global CO2 emissions

Reposted from edmhdotme

Screenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.14.11.pngScreenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.14.11.png

Following the thinking of the late Prof David Mackay using “back of the envelope calculations”, this post makes estimates of the likely future growth in global CO2 emissions to put the efforts at CO2 emissions reduction in the Western World into the context of a probable and inevitable future for Global CO2 emissions.

Two scenarios are considered.  They set the range of outcomes:

  1. The Underdeveloped world and India presently at a level of ~1.9tonnes/head/annum attain the global average level of CO2 emissions/head/annum of 2018:  4.46tonnes/head/annum.  This results in Global CO2 emissions growing by 18.5Gigatonnes/annum to reach ~52Gigatonnes/annum.  This level is close to the current CO2 emissions/head/annum in France.
  2. The Underdeveloped world and India eventually attain the level of CO2 emissions/head current in China:  6.78tonnes/head/annum.  This level is also close to the average 2018 CO2 emissions/head/annum in the EU(28). This would result in Global CO2 emissions growing by ~33.5Gigatonnes/annum to reach ~67Gigatonnes/annum.

These values set a range of estimates and show how the inevitable CO2 emissions growth in the Developing World would swamp any savings made by Western nations in the name of controlling climate.  This point was amply made by Berkley Professor Richard  Muller in 2010, before he set up the BEST temperature record.  His graph is shown below:  this post just puts some more precise values on the extent that the Underdeveloped world will wholly overwhelm any efforts in the West to reduce Global  CO2 emissions and thus attempt to influence Global temperature.Screenshot 2020-02-16 at 07.22.16.pngScreenshot 2020-02-16 at 07.22.16.png

A note aside:  As France uses Nuclear power for electricity generation its has achieved the lowest CO2 emissions/head/annum of all Developed Nations.  France has shown the way in which significant but not total Decarbonisation can be achieved in a Developed Nation.  Irrationally, French policy now favours the reduction of its Nuclear fleet and the promotion of Weather Dependent Renewables.Screenshot 2020-02-12 at 09.42.01.pngScreenshot 2020-02-12 at 09.42.01.png

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/graphic-presentations-of-electrical-generation-performance-in-three-european-countries-2017/

Starting point

BP releases its review of World Energy every year and the most recent data from this source is dated to the end of 2018.  This data set is used as the foundation of the following speculative calculations.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

The comprehensive BP data is reclassified into major Nation groups as shown below:

Screenshot 2020-02-09 at 09.44.36.pngScreenshot 2020-02-09 at 09.44.36.png

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/

CO2 emissions growth

In spite of the 2016 Paris Climate accord, it seems that the Underdeveloped and Developing Nations have no significant limitation of their CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future.

The BP data reports the 2018 Man-made CO2 emissions as ~34Gigatonnes/annum.  If the world population were:

  • to achieve the 2018 Global average the level of CO2 emissions would rise by ~18Gigatonnes/annum, an additional 60% to ~52Gigatonnes/annum
  • were the Global population eventually to attain a similar level of development to China that 2018 figure would increase by ~33gigatonnes/annum to virtually double to ~67Gigatonnes/annum.

In spite of Western agencies, such as the IMF, trying to hold back investment for effective power generation in the Underdeveloped World, (about half the Global population), on the grounds of controlling Man-made Climate Change, the Chinese “Belt and Road Program” is working in exactly the opposite direction.  China is promoting Coal-fired power and the installation of electrical grids throughout the Underdeveloped World.  The probable outcome in terms of CO2 emissions of this policy is indicated by these estimates.

The improvements in lifestyle for the Underdeveloped world will progressively reduce the pressure for further population growth in those Nations.  The concomitant beneficial outcome for China will be the eventual technical and financial colonisation of much of the Underdeveloped World.

The USA on the other hand has already achieved substantial CO2 emissions reduction, about -25% since 2000 by the use of Fracked Gas rather than Coal for electricity generation.  This technical shift has resulted a far greater CO2 emissions reduction than achieved by the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Climate Accord.  The USA’s continuing replacement of Coal by inexpensive Fracked gas for electricity generation is assumed to effect a further 15% reduction in its CO2 emissions.

The only Nations taking any real proactive account of their CO2 emissions are in Europe and possibly Canada.  The aspiration to get to “Net Zero CO2 emissions” is very unlikely to be achieved without the total loss of wellbeing in Europe and the destruction European economies.  It should be noted that the reduction of CO2 emissions/head/annum down to ~5.5tonnes/head in the UK is largely attributable to the UK “dash for Gas” policy, whereas the German “Energiewende” has not resulted in a similar CO2 emissions reduction.

Rather than achieving “Net Zero emissions”, more realistically, these estimates assume that Europe as a whole might reduce its CO2 emissions by a further 20%, but this would only amount to a reduction ~0.7Gigatonnes/annum.  Nonetheless even this level of CO2 emissions reduction would still be associated with massive self-harm to European economies.  This comparatively minor EU(28) CO2 emissions reduction of 0.7 Gigatonnes should be set against the inevitable CO2 emissions growth anticipated here initially of 18.5Gigatonnes/annum and possibly later up to 33.5Gigatonnes/annum.

The proportional percentage breakdown of this growth of CO2 emissions is shown below.

Screenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.15.01.pngScreenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.15.01.png

Estimated Global Population Growth

Screenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.13.37.pngScreenshot 2020-02-13 at 14.13.37.png

It is assumed that the bulk of population growth will arise in the Underdeveloped world, Rest of World (~160 Nations), growing by 30% and with India and the rapidly Developing Nations growing by ~20%.  This population growth can only be curbed by increasing development and urbanisation of the Underdeveloped world.  It is assumed that population growth in China will be more limited to about 10%.

The developed world would see only marginal population growth, with 5% growth in the USA and other Developed Nations, (JP CIS CA AU) and with virtually nil population growth in the EU(28).

The result is that Global population is likely to exceed ~9 billion by about 2100, of which the EU(28) share will reduce to from 6.8% to 5.7% of Global population.

Conclusion

The current, 2018 EU(28) CO2 emissions are 3.4Gigatonnes or about 10% of current Global CO2 emissions.  In the event of these two scenarios this EU(28) proportion of Global CO2 emissions will reduce to between 5.1% – 4.1%.  So a reduction of only 3.4 Gigatonnes/annum could be achieved by meeting the impossible target of Net Zero emissions in the EU(28).  Net Zero emissions achieved in the UK alone could only result in a CO2 reduction of 0.34Gigatonnes/annum.

However as soon as the Underdeveloped world gets access to centralised power the possibly viable 20% reduction for the EU(28) at 0.7Gigatonnes/annum would be entirely swamped by the inevitable additional CO2 emissions elsewhere in the World.

The likely CO2 emissions increases ranging from 18.5 – 33.5Gigatonnes/annum and puts the possible 20% reduction by the entire EU(28) of  ~0.7Gigatonnes in its true context. And as UK CO2 emissions are roughly 10% of the EU(28) total CO2 emissions, makes any efforts in CO2 emissions reduction in the UK even less significant.

In the context of the massive expansion of CO2 emissions from the Underdeveloped world, any CO2 reduction efforts in the EU(28) or just in the UK alone would be acts of massive self-harm and clearly futile.

Unsurprisingly, Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by their “Green thinking and Virtue Signalling” to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great National cost and to no perceptible benefit.  This is amply supported by Western “useful idiots”, (Lenin’s term).

The developing and Eastern worlds are certainly not going to be meekly following the deranged example of the “virtue signalling” West.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/05062019-china-and-india-will-watch-the-west-destroy-itself-oped/

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2SLXCPW

February 21, 2020 at 12:05PM

The mad rush to electric vehicles

Did you know that Bernie Sanders has championed a multi-state effort to end the sale of vehicles with internal combustion (IC) engines?
Whatever happened to the word ‘freedom’?

State and federal ruling classes might be surprised at how liberty and opportunity-loving Americans respond.
_____________

“Tesla’s incredible stock market value, news stories, and endless predictions and pandering by anti-fossil-fuel politicians suggest that the USA and world are going gaga for electric vehicles,” writes Paul Driessen. “But how long can the subsidies continue? Elon Musk’s company has already received over $5 billion in federal subsidies, and boatloads more in state subsidies. And that’s just the cash. Electric vehicle owners get all kinds of other favored treatment, too – while paying no gasoline taxes to cover road and highway construction, maintenance and repair costs.”

“How long can this free ride continue, before working class gasoline-powered car drivers say “enough”? How will we “refuel” an entire fleet of electric cars, trucks and buses multiple times every day or week – after we’ve replaced reliable, affordable fossil fuel and nuclear power with intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar power, under some Green New Deal?”

“Duggan Flanakin explores these questions and more in this article.”

____________

The mad rush to electric vehicles

Will this be another disaster for consumers?

Duggan Flanakin

Tesla’s stock market value is already bigger than Ford and General Motors combined, says a report in Forbes magazine. Elon Musk’s company had already received nearly $5 billion in federal subsidies by 2015, helping him amass a net worth of $31 billion. Who says government cannot make anyone rich?

But hold on. An ascendant Bernie Sanders has called for a massive expansion of government-run electricity production. He claims to be no friend of billionaires and is running against multiple billionaires, including two Democrat candidates and 23 contributors to Mayor Pete’s campaign.

But he sure is helping the rich. Sanders and many other politicos have championed a multi-state effort to end the sale of vehicles with internal combustion (IC) engines. So have several European nations. Related goals include phasing out coal, oil and natural gas for heating, electric power generation and other uses.

As Politico reports, a major part of Sanders’ $16 trillion Greener New Deal  allocates massive new funding for the four existing “power marketing administrations” that are overseen by the Department of Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority and a new federal agency. The money would go to vastly expand their solar, wind and even geothermal power production.

Sanders insists that he is not “nationalizing” energy production

Matt Palumbo, writing in the Bongino Report, says the Sanders plan will need $2 trillion just for infrastructure, dwarfing the cost of the interstate highway system, to add 800 gigawatts of intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy. Right now Sanders insists that he is not “nationalizing” energy production, but merely providing wholesale energy to public and private local suppliers. However, these subsidized government-run facilities will surely control the energy market. That looks like nationalization in all but official nomenclature.

Private companies that now rely on coal or natural gas will be further squeezed by mandated deep cuts in CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, energy demand for a mandated and growing fleet of electric vehicles will soar, requiring still more wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, transmission lines, and (as I note in a recent article about electric buses) metals, minerals and mining demands on unprecedented scales – coupled with rampant environmental destruction, child labor, and horrific increases in cancer and other diseases from the absence of workplace safety and pollution control standards.

Americans have expressed great displeasure over subsidizing EVs for the wealthy, a recent American Energy Alliance poll found. Only one in five voters would trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized – or mandated. Many do not even like, or cannot afford, the innovations already introduced for internal combustion vehicles, as evidenced by data showing that the average age of the U.S. vehicle fleet has increased in recent years.

Who can blame them for being angry? Wealthy EV buyers can get $7500 federal and up to $2500 state tax credits (not just deductions), free or low-cost charging at stations installed at taxpayer and electricity consumer cost, and access to HOV lanes even with no passengers. EV drivers pay no gasoline tax, and thus pay nothing for road construction, repair and maintenance. And as states “go green” and eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear power, average Americans will have to endure the eyesores, noise, habitat destruction and wildlife losses that will come with millions more wind turbines and solar panels.

Nevertheless, despite public qualms, most automakers have joined the EV movement. Like gossip in a small town, proposals and promises to ban or end production of IC engines have spread like wildfire. The Chinese-owned Swedish automaker Volvo announced in 2017 it would stop designing new IC engines. German giant Daimler (Mercedes Benz) followed suit last year. And in the United States, General Motors in 2018 announced plans to offer only battery-powered or hydrogen-powered vehicles in the near future.

The UK plans to ban sales of new IC engines in just 15 years

These automakers are perhaps just responding to the political climate in Europe. The United Kingdom just moved up its cutoff date for banning sales of new IC vehicles to 2035. The UK ban would even include hybrids! France and other countries are holding to a 2040 date for mandating all-electric fleets, while Norway has set a goal (not a mandate) to eliminate most IC engines (but not hybrids) by 2025. But amazingly California lawmakers actually killed a 2018 effort to ban IC engines by 2040.

Meanwhile, European automakers have moved to profit from EV charging stations. IONITY (created in 2017 as a joint venture between the BMW Group, Mercedes-Benz AG, the Ford Motor Company, and the Volkswagen Group with Audi and Porcshe) has already built over 200 facilities with over 860 charging points. It plans to expand to 400 facilities in 24 countries by year end 2020. And IONITY is not alone.

Europe today still has over 100,000 petrol and diesel fueling stations, certain to shrink as IC engines are now pariahs. But how do Europeans plan to charge all the electric cars, trucks and buses, if they must rely entirely on intermittent, unreliable, weather-dependent, super expensive wind and solar electricity?

Before February 2020, IONITY was charging a flat, fixed rate of eight Euros (about $8.87) for a fast charging session. That was less than 15 cents per kilowatt-hour for a 60-kW charge that might be good for 210 miles – on a continent where electricity prices are already 25 to 45 cents per kWh. With EU gasoline prices ranging from 1.77 euros/liter ($7.35 per gallon) in the Netherlands to $4.41/gallon in Romania, drivers would need about $31 in Romania or $51 in the Netherlands to drive the same distance (assuming 30 mpg), even at these incredible (and unsustainable) bargain basement electricity prices.

But as of February 1, IONITY switched to unit pricing at a rate of 0.79 euro/kWh (88 cents/kWh), or about $52.80 for a 60-kW charge. That’s a 500% increase in the cost of charging your car, just to travel a couple hundred miles. Suddenly, an EV charge is a whole lot more expensive than a fill-up.

So IONITY is offering discounts that customers can purchase from IONITY partner companies. At home chargers in the EU cost about $18 per 60-kW charge, plus about $1,000 for installation. That’s at the average EU residential rate of 30 cents/kWh (twice the current U.S. average). And that’s before the mad rush to electric cars, trucks and buses – and the mad rush to expensive “renewable” energy.

How will poor and working classes afford this?

How will poor and working classes afford this, especially people who must drive to work or must use trucks in their small businesses? Who will subsidize their soaring costs – the EU’s increasingly stretched and impoverished middle class? Its millionaires and billionaires?

Here’s the rub for Americans. If Sanders gets his way, the federal government will control the price and availability of electricity in the USA. California, which wants to mandate EVs only, has already faced multi-day electricity blackouts due to fire concerns, and if there’s no power there’s no charging. Many other countries also lack reliable electric power – and increasing electricity scarcity (almost certain in a fossil fuel-free environment) drives up prices even in government-controlled marketplaces.

After the 1970s oil embargo, the United States opted for a broad-based energy sector, so that shortages in one fuel would not cripple the national economy. But today, many cities have already moved to ban oil, coal and natural gas, nuclear is still taboo, and wind and solar are intermittent. The push toward an all-electric society – plus heavy and rising burdens on the power grid from intermittent power generations and charging all-electric vehicles – looks like a recipe for disaster, at least for the average consumer.

The well-connected always do well enough in controlled economies – at least until government policies send energy prices soaring, and send angry poor and working class protesters into the streets, to rage and rampage, as has happened in Iran, France and Chile.

But what can a We the Governed do but submit to the will of the all-powerful state envisioned by Sanders and his fellow Democrat presidential wannabes? They’re all insulated by their wealth and positions from the impacts of their policies. But what about the rest of us? State and federal ruling classes might be surprised at how liberty and opportunity-loving Americans respond.

Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

 

The post The mad rush to electric vehicles appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/32fMrCb

February 21, 2020 at 12:02PM

Global confusion: Turns out global warming doesn’t cause wandering Jet Stream “extreme weather”

It’s a flip on a flop. After all the media headlines, a new paper suggests that some climate scientists are not just wrong, they got cause and effect mixed up, and that the wandering “blocking” jet streams are not caused by warmer arctic, but may be causing the temperature changes instead.

“”The well-publicised idea that Arctic warming is leading to a wavier jet stream just does not hold up to scrutiny,” says Screen.

“With the benefit of ten more years of data and model experiments, we find no evidence of long-term changes in waviness despite on-going Arctic warming.”"

The truth is that most big models loosely predicted that global warming would make the jet streams less wiggly, but from the mid 1980s the jet-stream-trend was the other way. As the Arctic warmed the “waviness of jet streams increased”. So in 2012 a few modelers came up with a post hoc rationalization of why, really, truly, actually a warmer Arctic meant that the jets streams would wander more. The media enthusiastically repeated it, though it was contentious and disagreed with most models. But oh dear, by golly, by 2015 the trend started to reverse again. Now in […]

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2VbUMoY

February 21, 2020 at 11:38AM

Licorice Root tincture effective against Coronaviruses?

“Licorice has also been shown to stop the reproduction of HIV in lab studies.”
– Caroline Snyder
____________

Licorice Root tincture effective against Coronaviruses?

Caroline Snyder

Right now, I am making my own Licorice Root (Glycyrrhiza Glabra) tincture, as Licorice has been found to be one of the most effective agents against Coronaviruses. The commercial product is being cleaned from the shelves of mail order outlets as there are obviously others who think like me!

The Institute of Medical Virology in Frankfurt had researchers test four pharmaceuticals against a compound found in the root of licorice plants for the treatment of coronavirus from SARS patients.

The Lancet published the results which showed that licorice out performed all of the four drugs in so far as inhibiting the virus. Licorice greatly reduced the virus’s ability to reproduce itself as well as inhibit the virus from penetrating healthy cells. Licorice has also been shown to stop the reproduction of HIV in lab studies.

LINK to Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)13615-X/fulltext

Caution however, as Licorice can elevate blood pressure!

The post Licorice Root tincture effective against Coronaviruses? appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/38JHCDI

February 21, 2020 at 11:30AM