Month: February 2020

26 people quarantined in homes in Westchester County, NY

Westchester County is located just north of New York City.

None of the travelers, who just returned from China, is showing any symptoms of the coronavirus, according to abc7ny.com.

Eyewitness News has been told that the quarantine is voluntary and out of an abundance of caution.

https://abc7ny.com/health/26-quarantined-in-westchester-county-over-coronavirus-concerns/5944654/

Thanks to Jack Hydrazine for this link

The post 26 people quarantined in homes in Westchester County, NY appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/2SWqaVP

February 19, 2020 at 11:31AM

“Free Solar Energy” – for only $2+ per kWh

“In comparison, average fossil fuel type electric energy (coal, oil, gas) is less than 1/10th of that.”
– Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
_____________

“Free Solar Energy” – for only $2+ per kWh

Sunshine is free but solar power is not. In fact, it’s anything else but free or cheap.
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project (CDEP), also known as the Tonopah Solar Energy Project, has stopped operating and has been “mothballed.” The solar collectors, shown nearby, cover 300 acres.

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, near Tonopah, NV; source Wikipedia.

One billion-dollar boondoggle

The CDEP construction cost had largely been funded by a $735,000,000 U.S. Dept. of Energy loan guarantee in 2011. According to Wikipedia, the full construction cost was close to $1 billion. It began operating in September of 2015.

Over the following years, until May 2019, it had produced a sum total of 420 million kilo-Watt-hour (kWh) of electricity. That was less than half of what the design claimed as anticipated output.

Now, let’s do a quick calculation to determine:

How much did one kWh of CDEP electric energy really cost?

Adjusting for the 2011-2018 loss in purchasing power of the currency by approximately 15%, then, in adjusted dollar terms, the project was funded with roughly $840 million of taxpayer money. Dividing that sum by the total energy output of 420 million kWh results in a cost of $2 per each kWh actually produced. That cost even excludes any operating expenses.

With the full construction cost and operating expenses calculated in, each kWh produced at the CDEP was in the order $2.50. In comparison, average fossil fuel type electric energy (coal, oil, gas) is less than 1/10th of that.

Despite that high cost per kWh produced, the project would probably still be “running full tilt” if the energy was really available when needed, as the design also proclaimed. Of course, that, too, was a fallacy and in the end lead to its demise.

You might wonder why other, similar solar power projects, for example the Ivanpah solar power project, somewhat further south in California’s Mojave Desert, are still running? That’s a good question!

The answer may surprise you.

The Ivanpah system is producing roughly half of its “solar energy” by burning natural gas to “pre-heat” the central collector fluid. That, of course, also reduces their true output costs to a mere $1 or so per kWh.

Clearly then, the sunshine is free but solar power is anything else but cheap and certainly not free. Moreover, any solar power plants that are still operating need a full power 24/7 standby energy source as well as plenty of carbon-based fuel just to maintain regular operations.

Now to the latest “Free Energy” News

As Science Daily reports on Feb. 17, 2020:

                New green technology generates electricity ‘out of thin air’

University of Massachusetts at Amherst electrical engineers and microbiologists have created a device they call an ‘Air-gen’ or air-powered generator, with electrically conductive protein nanowires produced by the microbe Geobacter. The Air-gen connects electrodes to the protein nanowires in such a way that electrical current is generated from the water vapor naturally present in the atmosphere.

Presumably, that’s another source of “free” energy. Moreover, it doesn’t even need any sunshine at all. Just some water vapor in the air and a few microbial nanothings on the ground.

One of its inventors, Derek Lovley, is reported to have stated “The new technology developed in Yao’s lab is non-polluting, renewable and low-cost. It can generate power even in areas with extremely low humidity such as the Sahara Desert. It has significant advantages over other forms of renewable energy including solar and wind.”

You may ask “How much better can it get?”

To me, this sounds like “free-squared.” It also reminds me of the 1960’s musical West Side Story hit “Everything is free in America.”

It looks like that’s still the case – supposedly.

__________________________

Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.

Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.

Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
convenientmyths.com

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths.com

The post “Free Solar Energy” – for only $2+ per kWh appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/2HFmv9D

February 19, 2020 at 11:31AM

“Arctic Surprise…Sensational Study In Nature”: Large Part Of 20th Century Warming Attributed To CFCs!

Arctic Surprise

By Professor Fritz Vahrenholt

A few days ago, an international research group from the USA, Canada and Switzerland led by Lorenzo Polvani of Columbia University (New York) published a sensational study in Nature climate change, which attributes a large part of the warming of the 20th century to CFCs (“Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances“).

Using 10 climate models, the researchers calculated the global and Arctic temperature development, once with CFCs in the atmosphere and once without.

According to these models, from 1955 to 2005, global temperatures increase by 0.59 °C with CFCs and by 0.39 °C without CFCs. One third of the warming is therefore not caused by CO2 but by the CFCs.

If the remaining warming for CO2 is converted over the five decades, an average warming of 0.08 °C per decade remains. Not exactly a lot. CFCs have a 19000-23000 times stronger forcing than CO2.

Half of Arctic warming due to CFCs

In the Arctic, the CFCs had an even greater impact in the model calculations. As is well known, the warming there from 1955 to 2005 was greater than on a global scale, by 1.59 °C in the models. According to Polvani, without CFCs the increase would have been only 0.82°C, i.e. only half as much.

Half of Arctic melt due to CFCs

The same applies to sea ice. According to Polvani, half of the decrease in the area of Arctic sea ice in September (the smallest extent of Arctic sea ice in each case) is thus attributable to CFCs. The other way round: only a maximum of half of the warming and the decline of the sea ice can be attributed to CO2.

Authors asked to edit conclusion

The authors conclude that the decrease of CFCs in the air due to the prohibition of the substances will substantially defuse the warming and the decrease of ice in the future. It is interesting that these clear conclusions called mainstream scientists to the scene. Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and John Fyfe of the Canadian University of Victoria asked the authors to change the sentence in the conclusion from “CFCs produce 1/3 of global warming and half of Arctic climate change” to “CFCs are an important contribution to the global climate system, especially in the Arctic”.

The numbers remain, but the interpretation is clouded because it would cause too much sensation. That’s how climate science framing works today.

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/2HzyTrM

February 19, 2020 at 11:24AM

746 people in Washington now under supervision for coronavirus

What in the hell do they mean by “under supervision?”
____________

According to KHQ-TV in Spokane, Washington, “another 34 people in Washington state are now under public health supervision for coronavirus.”

“The total now stands at 746 people who are at risk of having been exposed to novel coronavirus, according to the Washington State Department of Health. That number is up from 712 on Monday, Feb. 17. This includes people who are close contacts of laboratory confirmed cases and people who have returned from China in the past 14 days.”

Does “under supervision” mean that these 746 people have been quarantined? I don’t know.

The good news is that so far there has been only one case of confirmed coronavirus in the state, and “that patient has since been released from the hospital following treatment.”

https://www.khq.com/news/nearly-people-in-washington-now-under-supervision-for-coronavirus/article_4930fbe6-52b0-11ea-95b4-cf8a103af7b5.html

Thanks to Jack Hydrazine for this link

The post 746 people in Washington now under supervision for coronavirus appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now

https://ift.tt/32jRoKB

February 19, 2020 at 11:00AM