The presence of sulphur in the atmosphere hinted at this.
– – –
A new study identified 37 recently active volcanic structures on Venus, reports Phys.org
The study provides some of the best evidence yet that Venus is still a geologically active planet.
A research paper on the work, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland and the Institute of Geophysics at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, was published in the journal Nature Geoscience on July 20, 2020.
“This is the first time we are able to point to specific structures and say ‘Look, this is not an ancient volcano but one that is active today, dormant perhaps, but not dead,’” said Laurent Montési, a professor of geology at UMD and co-author of the research paper. “This study significantly changes the view of Venus from a mostly inactive planet to one whose interior is still churning and can feed many active volcanoes.”
Scientists have known for some time that Venus has a younger surface than planets like Mars and Mercury, which have cold interiors.
Evidence of a warm interior and geologic activity dots the surface of the planet in the form of ring-like structures known as coronae, which form when plumes of hot material deep inside the planet rise through the mantle layer and crust. This is similar to the way mantle plumes formed the volcanic Hawaiian Islands.
But it was thought that the coronae on Venus were probably signs of ancient activity, and that Venus had cooled enough to slow geological activity in the planet’s interior and harden the crust so much that any warm material from deep inside would not be able to puncture through.
In addition, the exact processes by which mantle plumes formed coronae on Venus and the reasons for variation among coronae have been matters for debate.
Apparently, a prediction that polar bears could be nearly extinct by 2100 (which was first suggested back in 2007) is news today because there is a new model. As for all previous models, this prediction of future polar bear devastation depends on using the so-called ‘business as usual’ RCP8.5 climate scenario, which has been roundly criticized in recent years as totally implausible, which even the BBC has mentioned. This new model, published today as a pay-walled paper in Nature Climate Change, also did something I warned against in my last post: it uses polar bear data collected up to 2009 only from Western Hudson Bay – which is an outlier in many respects – to predict the response of bears worldwide. The lead author, Peter Molnar, is a former student of vocal polar bear catastrophist Andrew Derocher – who himself learned his trade from the king…
Tasmania’s rugged North is one of Australia’s natural wonders, but not for much longer if Chinese wind developers have their way.
Tasmania’s rare and endangered Wedge Tailed Eagle is already under threat, being slice and diced with impunity by its existing wind farms on the North-West and North-East coasts. Now another monster wind farm is set to extend the carnage across the central highlands.
Epuron might be the nominated developer, but chances are it will flog its project once it gets development approval to Beijing-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co, which will almost certainly provide the Chinese made turbines. Epuron has done the same in a number of other places elsewhere.
Alan Jones, gobsmacked by the hundreds of $millions in subsidies that will be pocketed by its Chinese owner over the life of its wind farm, takes a look at the kind of carnage that’s threatened.
Taxpayers will stump up exorbitant price to foreign-owned wind farm provider
Sky News
Alan Jones
15 July 2020
Sky News host Alan Jones says a proposal by the “eminently forgettable” Malcolm Turnbull could see a private foreign-owned wind farm manufacturer take over rural land in Tasmania at the taxpayer’s expense.
The proposal is to build 67 wind turbines, each 240 metres tall, across rural properties alongside the main transmission corridor between Hobart and Launceston.
Mr Jones pointed out that not only is the area known as the “jewel in the crown” of the Central Highlands, it is also home to the Tasmanian wedged tail eagle and the Tasmanian devil.
A 2015 Parliamentary Select Committee on wind turbines found this program would impose an aggregate cost on the economy of between $30-$53 billion.
It also said the program not only inflicts a direct cost onto electricity consumers, but it also undermines Australia’s comparative advantage as a low-cost electricity supply source.
“The eminently forgettable Malcolm Turnbull had a grand idea that Tasmania could be the battery of the nation”.
“Tasmania does not need the electricity, but they are asked to stump up a fair share of the cost.
“In the end, you pay, most probably to a private foreign-owned wind farm unit.” Sky News
Transcript
Alan Jones: Can you tell me a problem we’ve faced that’s not created by government? Let’s go to Tasmania. There’s a proposal amongst others to build 67 wind turbines, 240 metres high, three times the height of Wrest Point casino. That’s the tallest in the world across rural properties alongside the main transmission corridor between Hobart and Launceston. Now just forget for a moment that the area is known as the jewel in the crown of the Central Highlands and the location of species such as the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle and the Tasmanian devil.
The eminently forgettable, Malcolm Turnbull had a grand idea that Tasmania could be the battery of the nation. Tasmania doesn’t need the electricity, they’re asked to stump up a fair share of the cost, but in the end you pay, most probably to a private, foreign owned, wind farm outfit. There was a parliamentary select committee on wind turbines. It reported in June 2015.
Chapter seven, in fact, 7.55, the paragraph says, “The cost to Australia of continuing to force electricity customers to incorporate uncommercial renewable energy within the aggregate supply are considerable…” It said, “… by 2020, those costs will amount to $3.5 billion a year in electricity bills.” It added that,”… this renewable energy program, when it has run its course, will impose an aggregate cost on the economy of between $30 and $53 billion.” It said, “Not only does this inflict a direct cost on electricity consumers, but it also undermines Australia’s comparative advantage as a low-cost electricity supply source.”
Now one outfit regulation economics gave evidence that, “… subsidised renewable energy has been sucking capital into worthless investments.” Further evidence was given in paragraph 7.53. Listen to this, “… on a conservative estimate each eligible company receives in excess of $500,000 a year for each turbine.” This is your money. The report added on the basis of there being 2,777 wind turbines in Australia, this provides $1.09 billion per annum to the wind industry.
Remember earlier this month, Michael Shellenberger, the American author environmental policy writer, apologised, “… for the climate scare we’ve created over the past 30 years.” Of climate change he said, “It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.” He said, “I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.”
And here we are in a beautiful part of the world, 67 wind turbines proposed in a corridor between Hobart and Launceston, the Central Highlands of Tasmania. Fly fishing tourism and Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle and the Tasmanian devil. As I’ve said, known as the jewel of the crown, St Patricks Plains. Is this going to be destroyed by wind turbines so that some outfit can make a quid $500,000 a year per turbine.
Well, Malcolm Crosse is approaching 80 years of age. They’re the only ones who seem to worry. Younger Australians have been brainwashed believing that renewable energy is everything. Well, Malcolm Crosse joins us from his farm. Malcolm, good evening to you.
Malcolm Crosse: Good evening, Alan. How are you?
Alan Jones: I’m well. Has approval been given for this?
Malcolm Crosse: No, not yet. The company who is seeking the approval, Epuron from Sydney, is currently going through all the processes with the EPA and gaining approval, to then on-sell it to a constructor, that which will more than likely to be a foreign owned company.
Alan Jones: So basically there’s a whole stack of these proposals for Tasmania, is there not? Because Malcolm Turnbull wanted Tasmania to be the battery of the nation, even though you don’t need the electricity.
Malcolm Crosse: Well, that’s exactly right, and I always say all we can provide is a AAA battery and when do you consider that New South Wales just recently announced a development in the Dubbo region, which is 20 times more than what the whole of Tasmania’s output power is, and this is a new initiative with wind and solar in the Dubbo Western Plains area.
Alan Jones: Malcolm, are Tasmanians aware of this? Are there people prepared to defend the historical cultural and tourism benefits that already derive from these beautiful Central Highlands?
Malcolm Crosse: No. I think I can categorically say that they’re slowly waking up. Because we have it good here in Tasmania and we’re very lucky to live here, and I think it’s hasn’t been that well publicised and now they’re starting to realise that this threat is coming in all forms, not only wind and solar in inappropriate places, and hopefully through you tonight we’ll get the message out a bit further.
Alan Jones: Malcolm, just one before we go, just one before we go. Do you reckon they’d be remotely interested if they weren’t being paid taxpayers’ money of $500,000 per turbine?
Malcolm Crosse: Of course not, of course not. That’s right. And the other thing about it is that the land that the 67 turbines are going on are all privately owned by graziers here in Tasmania, very wealthy graziers I might add, and none of them live in the area. They all live in Hobart or away from the paddock that the towers are going on.
Alan Jones: Absolutely. Good on you, Malcolm. Hang in there. Malcolm Crosse from Tasmania. We’ll keep in touch. Another piece of nonsense and your money. Would you be in wind turbines if you could get $500,000 per turbine from the taxpayer? Sky News
One of Tasmania’s lucky wind turbine survivors finds a friend.
We cannot revert to timber fuel, for ‘nearly the entire surface of our island would be required to grow timber sufficient for the consumption of the iron manufacture alone.’
The internal heat of the earth … presents an immense store of force, but, being manifested only in the hot-spring, the volcano, or the warm mine, it is evidently not available. (Jevons, below)
W. S. Jevons in his early day recognized a central problem of windpower for powering machinery–intermittency. The wind does not always blow, and it cannot be known when this will occur, making an even flow of power (as from conventional sources) impossible short of cost-prohibitive battery backup.
What about the other renewables of the day: water power, biomass, and geothermal? And what 19th century wisdom applies to the Green New Deal of the 21st?
Waterpower
Jevons identified several problems with falling water, or what is known today in electricity generation as hydropower. There can be too much flowing water to disrupt its application, water flow is seasonal, there can be “failure by drought,” and flat terrain limits water’s use as energy. As Jevons states in The Coal Question (London: Macmillan and Co., 1865), p. 129:
When an abundant natural fall of water is at hand, nothing can be cheaper or better than water power. But everything depends upon local circumstances. The occasional mountain torrent is simply destructive. Many streams and rivers only contain sufficient water half the year round and costly reservoirs alone could keep up the summer supply. In flat countries no engineering art could procure any considerable supply of natural water power, and in very few places do we find water power free from occasional failure by drought.
Another problem: water (as other renewables) is a flow of potential energy is not a store of energy that can be transported to where it is needed. It must be used where it originates. Jevons explains (ibid.):
The necessity … of carrying the work to the power, not the power to the work, is a disadvantage in water power, and wholly prevents that concentration of works in one neighbourhood which is highly advantageous to the perfection of our mechanical system. Even the cost of conveying materials often overbalances the cheapness of water power
And, finally, there is the capital cost of converting water into energy. Jevons states (ibid.):
Even the cost of conveying materials often overbalances the cheapness of water power
So falling water, in addition to windpower, cannot reliably or economically power industrial society. What about biomass and geothermal, the other renewables? Jevons explains why neither breaks the renewables quandary to meet the energy needs of the machine age.
Biomass
The most dominant energy of mankind prior to the hydrocarbon energy age was what is today called primitive biomass, or the burning of plants and wood. Jevons, however, knew that the machines of the industrial age could not replace “nonrenewable” coal for primitive biomass (The Coal Question, p. 140):
We cannot revert to timber fuel, for ‘nearly the entire surface of our island would be required to grow timber sufficient for the consumption of the iron manufacture alone.’
Geothermal
And, finally, geothermal was a limited source given technological constraints (The Coal Question, p. 120–21):
The internal heat of the earth … presents an immense store of force, but, being manifested only in the hot-spring, the volcano, or the warm mine, it is evidently not available.
Iowa Climate Science Education 