Month: May 2024

The Carbon Capture Con

“Pumping gases underground is only sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to increase oil recovery from declining oil fields – frack the strata, pump in CO2, and force out oil/gas.”

Carbon-capture-and-underground-storage “(CCUS)” tops the list of silly schemes “to reduce man-made global warming”. The idea is to capture exhaust gases from power stations or cement plants, separate the CO2 from the other gases, compress it, pump it to the chosen burial site and force it underground into permeable rock formations. Then hope it never escapes.

An Australian mining company who should know better is hoping to appease green critics by proposing to bury the gas of life, CO2, deep in the sedimentary rocks of Australia’s Great Artesian Basin.

They have chosen the Precipice Sandstone for their carbon cemetery. However, the chances of keeping CO2 gas confined in this porous sandstone are remote. This formation has a very large area of outcrop to the surface and gas will escape somewhere, so why bother forcing it into a jail with no roof?

Glencore shareholders should rise in anger at this wasteful and futile pagan sacrifice to the global warming gods. It will join fiascos like Snowy 2, pink bats and SunCable (a dream to take solar energy generated in NT via overhead and undersea cable for over 5000 km across ocean deeps and volcanic belts to Singapore).

Engineers with buckets of easy money may base a whole career on Carbon Capture and Underground Storage. But only stupid green zealots would support the sacrifice of billions of investment dollars and scads of energy to bury this harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in the hope of appeasing the high priests of global warming.

The quantities of gases that CCUS would need to handle are enormous, and the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is a dreadful waste of energy and resources, consuming about twenty percent of power delivered from an otherwise efficient coal-fired power station.

For every tonne of coal burnt in a power station, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen from the air used to burn the coal, plus 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour from the coal combustion process.

Normally these beneficial atmospheric gases are released to the atmosphere after filters take out any nasties like soot and noxious fumes.

However, CCUS also requires energy to produce and fabricate steel and erect gas storages, pumps and pipelines and to drill disposal wells. This will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for zero benefit.

But the real problems are at the burial site – how to create a secure space to hold the CO2 gas. There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space on Earth is occupied by something – solids, liquids or gases. Underground disposal of CO2 requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever fills the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.

The natural gases in sedimentary rock formations are commonly air, CO2, CH4 (methane) or rarely, H2S (rotten egg gas). The liquids are commonly salty water, sometimes fresh water or very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.

Pumping out air is costly; pumping out natural CO2 to make room for man-made CO2 is pointless; and releasing rotten egg gas or salty water on the surface would create a real problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.

In some cases, CCUS may require the removal of fresh water to make space for CO2. Producing fresh water on the surface would be seen as a boon by most locals. Pumping out salt water to make space to bury CO2 would create more problems than it could solve.

Naturally, some carbon dioxide buried under pressure will dissolve in groundwater and aerate it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil.

Then there is the dangerous risk of a surface outburst or leakage from a pressurised underground reservoir of CO2. The atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2 which is beneficial for all life. But the gas in a CCUS reservoir would contain +90% of this heavier-than-air gas – a lethal, suffocating concentration for nearby animal life if it escaped in a gas outburst.

Pumping gases underground is only sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to increase oil recovery from declining oil fields – frack the strata, pump in CO2, and force out oil/gas. To find a place where you could drive out natural hydro-carbons in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but unlikely event.

Normally however, CCUS will be futile as the oceans will largely undo whatever man tries to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Oceans contain vastly more CO2 than the thin puny atmosphere, and oceans maintain equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If man releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will quickly absorb much of it. And if by some fluke man reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would bubble out of the oceans to replace much of it. Or just one decent volcanic explosion could negate the whole CCUS exercise.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere encourages all plants to grow better and use more CO2. Unfortunately natural processes are continually sequestering huge tonnages of CO2 into extensive deposits of shale, coal, limestone, dolomite and magnesite – this process has driven atmospheric CO2 to dangerously low concentrations. Burning hydrocarbons and making cement returns a tiny bit of this plant food from the lithosphere to the biosphere.

Regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans and plants – they have been doing it successfully for millennia.

The only certain outcome from CCUS is more expensive electricity and a waste of energy resources to do all the separation, compressing and pumping. Unscrupulous Coal industry leaders love the idea of selling more coal to produce the same amount of electricity and electricity generators would welcome an increased demand for power. And green zealots in USA plan to force all coal and gas plants to bury all CO2 plant food that they generate. Consumers and taxpayers are the suckers.

Naturally the Greens love the idea of making coal and gas-fired electricity more expensive. They conveniently ignore the fact that CCUS is anti-life – it steals plant food from the biosphere.

Global Warming has never been a threat to life on Earth – Ice is the killer. Glencore directors supporting this CCUS stupidity should be condemned for destructive ignorance.

————-
Geologist Viv Forbes is the founder of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

The post The Carbon Capture Con appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/mKQ6hIv

May 17, 2024 at 01:07AM

Many of the ‘Climate Experts’ Surveyed by the Guardian in Recent Propaganda Blitz Turn Out to be Emotionally-Unstable Hysterics

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Ben Pile

The Guardian last week published its survey of ‘climate experts’. The results are a predictable mush of fire-and-brimstone predictions and emotional incontinence. This stunt may have convinced those already aligned to the newspaper’s ideological agenda to redouble their characteristically shrill rhetoric, but encouraging scientists to speculate and emote about the future of the planet looks like an act of political desperation, not scientific communication.

For the purposes of creating this story, the Guardian’s Environment Editor Damian Carrington contacted 843 ‘lead authors’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports (IPCC) and 383 responded to his questions. The actual substance of the survey does not seem to have been published by the paper, but the main response Carrington wanted to get from his respondents was an estimate of how much global warming there will be by the end of the century. “World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5ºC target,” claims one headline. A graphic in the article shows the responses:

The obvious problem this raises is that such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change. The ‘consensus’ – the putative expression of agreement by the worlds ‘top climate scientists’ – is the lynchpin of the narrative, epitomised by the Guardian, that the climate debate is between scientists and denialists. “Seventy seven per cent of climate scientists expect a rise of at least 2.5ºC,” explains the chart. Well, yeah, but 23% of climate scientists do not. And a good number of those connected to the IPCC believe that there will be just 1.5 degrees of warming – a third less warming than is anticipated by their colleagues at the other end of the spectrum. Clearly, there is, or needs to be, a debate.

This in turn raises the question of why this survey was necessary at all. The IPCC’s main output is an Assessment Report (AR), of which six have so far been produced since 1990. Each AR consists of three main volumes, each produced by a Working Group (WG), whose focus is on assessing the available research on “the physical science” (WG1), impacts and vulnerabilities (WG2), and mitigation options (WG3). A Guardian opinion survey is hardly going to shed any light on science that these scientists, who authored the reports, have not already published. It would seem rather silly to ignore the thousands of pages of summaries of the state of scientific understanding that hundreds of scientists and other experts have compiled and substitute it with a DIY opinion poll.

Opinion isn’t science. Even scientific opinion is not science. Yet Carrington seems to believe that tapping into the emotions of scientists is of greater value than reading their work. And all sorts of mush seems to have been unleashed by his project. “‘I am starting to panic about my child’s future’: climate scientists wary of starting families,” claims one headline based on the survey. According to the article, the victim of the panic is a Professor Lisa Schipper, whom Carrington describes as “an expert on climate vulnerability”. Schipper’s profile, however, reveals her actual occupation: “I am particularly interested in socio-cultural dimensions of vulnerability, including gender, culture and religion, as well as structural issues related to power, justice and equity.” I’m smelling a rat here, and more than a whiff of humbug. Schipper is not a climate scientist at all, as Carrington seems to imply in both his headline and his article.

Another article – an interactive page on the Guardian website – claims: “We asked 380 top climate scientists what they felt about the future.” The article quotes, among others, Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University of Bath, who tells Carrington:

[Climate change] is an existential threat to humanity and [lack of] political will and vested corporate interests are preventing us addressing it. I do worry about the future my children are inheriting.

But Whitmarsh is not a climate scientist either. According to her academic profile at Bath, She did a BA in Theology and Religious Studies with French at the University of Kent, graduating in 1997. She followed this with a Masters in ‘Science, Culture and Communication’, before completing a PhD in Psychology in 2005. Now Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Whitmarsh researches “perceptions and behaviour in relation to climate change, energy and transport” and “regularly advises governmental and other organisations on low-carbon behaviour change and climate change communication”.

I have discussed the nature of climate psychologists’ work before in the Daily Sceptic. And of course, CAST is of that lofty academic milieu which wraps naked Stalinism in motherhood-and-apple-pie. “We want to work closely with people and organisations to achieve positive low-carbon futures — transforming the way we live our lives, and reconfiguring organisations and cities,” says the group’s website. What it doesn’t have an answer to, however, is people who do not share CAST’s radical ideology and do not want their lives, cities or organisations transformed or reconfigured by self-regarding shrinks – who are manifestly the ones in need of help.

There are of course a number of respondents with scientific backgrounds who have replied to Carrington. But these scientific credentials do not seem to have made those who own them any more rational. “Sometimes it is almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken,” says climate scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota, who at least appears to have a PhD in Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, “after all the flooding, fires, and droughts of the last three years worldwide, all related to climate change…”

But perhaps Cerezo-Mota forgot to read IPCC AR 6 in which her colleagues conclude that any detectable increase in floods and meteorological and hydrological droughts cannot be attributed with confidence to anthropogenic climate change. And perhaps she forgot that two decades of wildfire data in all regions of the world show significant declines.

I think it is probably for the best that such nervous wrecks do not reproduce. Their grasp on the data is particularly myopic. Despite their apparent belief that the climate crisis is upon us, life for children born in recent years is immeasurably better that of earlier generations. Rather than being dominated by the weather, today’s children are not only far more likely to survive their fifth birthday, they are going to live longer, healthier, wealthier and safer lives than any generation before them.

That is, unless these crazy climate scientists get their way. Because they would strip away every last benefit of industry, capitalism,and freedom to ‘save the planet’, and deny those children the abundant and affordable resources that has created their historically unprecedented position.

It goes further than humbug. I sense very little data and science underpins their anti-natalism, but a great deal of ideology and manipulation. So how can we explain these scientists’ views, if we don’t believe that they emerge from science?

One answer might be that, for nearly 40 years now, green ideology has been poured into classrooms throughout the world, without any care for the consequences. It has largely bounced off most people. But several generations of children have now come up through this system into the adult world, through higher education. The institutions of climate and environmental science have increasingly become the centres to which unhinged individuals are drawn. Emotionally unstable people naturally seek reasons to explain their dysphoria and believing there is a crisis unfolding in the skies above their heads (rather than in them) is a way to explain their anxieties. After all, if you were not a climate loon, why would you volunteer your time to the IPCC? Gradually, rational views have been weeded out of these institutions.

I believe that is the implication of Carrington’s series of Guardian articles and his survey. It shows that people with no scientific expertise to speak of are nonetheless routinely presented as ‘scientists’ and experts. It shows that even those with scientific expertise will happily and radically depart from both the consensus position and the objective data on both meteorological events and their societal impacts. And it shows they have no reluctance to use their own emotional distress as leverage to coerce others. Carrington thinks that showing us scientists’ emotional troubles will convince us to share their anxiety. But all it shows is that it would be deeply foolish to defer to the authority of climate science. It’s an unstable mess. Science must be cool, calm, rational, detached and disinterested, or it is just a silly soap opera.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/FE5r7YV

May 17, 2024 at 12:07AM

Biden China Tariffs Infuriate Climate Activists

Essay by Eric Worrall

Climate change news seems to be taking the Chinese line on the tariff issue – but who expected anything different?

Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels 

Published on 15/05/2024, 5:21pm

The measures are designed to increase the cost of Chinese goods needed for the energy transition – and could therefore slow the US shift away from fossil fuels

By Joe Lo

Five days after seemingly cordial US-China climate talks, US President Joe Biden has announced he will increase US tariffs on Chinese solar panels, electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries to run them.

Last Wednesday and Thursday, China’s new top climate diplomat Liu Zhenmin travelled to Washington DC for two days of talks with his US counterpart John Podesta, also fresh in the job.

They discussed co-operation on climate issues, including plans for both sides to ramp up renewables, and vowed to “intensify technical and policy exchanges”.

But the day after, with Liu still in the country, the US State Department briefed journalists that Podesta had told Liu that China was producing too many solar panels and lithium-ion EV batteries.

Then on Tuesday, the White House increased tariffs on Chinese EVs, lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, accusing the Chinese government of “unfair, non-market practices” and “flooding global markets with artificially low-priced exports”.

Read more: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/05/15/days-after-climate-talks-us-slaps-tariffs-on-chinese-evs-and-solar-panels/

Regardless of China’s understandable confusion on where they stand with the Bidens and the US renewable industry, I doubt these tariffs will improve the circumstances of US solar manufacturers. There are too many barriers for US solar manufacturers to be globally competitive, such as the USA’s increasingly expensive energy and tough environmental regulations, and the door is still open to imports from other nations with lower manufacturing costs.

President Biden has threatened to extend the tariffs if he becomes convinced Chinese manufacturers are circumventing his tariffs by transshipping solar panels through other nations. I’m sure those other nations being threatened with tariffs will be keen to persuade President Biden that nothing untoward is happening. Perhaps President Biden should send Hunter on a fact finding mission

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/v9ghtqy

May 16, 2024 at 08:03PM

DeSantis signs laws slashing climate agenda directives, targeting adversary investments

Governor DeSantis: A Beacon of Rational Policy Against Ideological Zealotry

Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida has once again demonstrated his unwavering commitment to practical and rational governance by signing into law a series of bills designed to counter the prevailing tide of ideological narratives that have infiltrated energy policy and economic investments. This legislative action is a refreshing departure from the often dogmatic approaches seen in other states, bringing a much-needed focus on practicality and economic sense.

Rescinding Unnecessary Climate Directives

At the core of these legislative measures is a clear-eyed rejection of radical climate agenda directives. The new laws place a greater emphasis on nuclear energy and natural gas, which are both reliable and cost-effective sources of energy. DeSantis has consistently championed policies that prioritize the economic well-being of Floridians, and this move underscores his dedication to maintaining affordable energy prices and enhancing energy security.

“The legislation I signed today [will] keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state,” the governor said. “We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots”​​.

https://flvoicenews.com/desantis-signs-laws-slashing-climate-agenda-directives-targeting-adversary-investments/

By focusing on nuclear energy, which has a proven track record of safety and efficiency, and expanding natural gas resources, Florida is set to benefit from a more stable and sustainable energy infrastructure. This pragmatic approach contrasts sharply with the impracticalities of over-reliance on intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar.

Banning Investments with Adversary Links

One of the standout elements of the new legislation is the prohibition of state holdings in companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party and those utilizing forced labor. This move is a strategic and ethical decision that aligns with national security interests and human rights standards. The financial entanglement with adversarial nations and unethical practices is a concern that has often been overlooked in the rush to globalize investments.

“The legislation also encourages the expansion of natural gas resources throughout the state”​​.

https://flvoicenews.com/desantis-signs-laws-slashing-climate-agenda-directives-targeting-adversary-investments/

The legislative package includes HB 7071, which prevents the State Board Administration from accepting direct holdings of Chinese companies on behalf of the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund. Additionally, a thorough review of existing investments will ensure that Floridian funds are not inadvertently supporting adversary nations or unethical labor practices.

Enhancing Energy Policy and Economic Focus

The emphasis on economic evaluation and technical feasibility in energy policy is a hallmark of Governor DeSantis’s administration. The new laws mandate a comprehensive study of nuclear power technologies, ensuring that Florida’s energy future is not only secure but also economically viable.

“The proposal rescinds a phrase directing the state to address ‘the potential of global climate change.’ The bill also requires the state to study and evaluate the potential technical and economic advantages of using nuclear power technologies”​​.

https://flvoicenews.com/desantis-signs-laws-slashing-climate-agenda-directives-targeting-adversary-investments/

By stripping away directives that were more ideological than practical, the state can now focus on real-world solutions that offer tangible benefits. This approach will likely serve as a model for other states grappling with the balance between environmental stewardship and economic vitality.

Protecting Florida’s Interests

Governor DeSantis’s decisive actions are a testament to his commitment to protecting Florida’s interests against both ideological and foreign threats. The inclusion of provisions to ban state contracts with companies involved in forced labor further highlights his administration’s stance on maintaining ethical and secure economic practices.

“The bill requires the Department of Management Services to create and maintain a forced labor vendor list of companies that have been disqualified from public contracting for 365 days and to publish an updated version of the list on a quarterly basis”​​.

https://flvoicenews.com/desantis-signs-laws-slashing-climate-agenda-directives-targeting-adversary-investments/

This initiative not only ensures that state funds are used responsibly but also sends a strong message about Florida’s ethical standards in business operations.

Conclusion

Governor Ron DeSantis’s recent legislative measures are a bold affirmation of rational policy-making in an era often dominated by ideological extremes. By focusing on reliable energy sources, ethical investments, and practical governance, DeSantis is leading Florida towards a more stable and prosperous future. These laws are not just a win for Floridians but a beacon for other states to follow in crafting policies that prioritize common sense over ideology.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/E4zrMS7

May 16, 2024 at 04:07PM